HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/10/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA
OCTOBER 7, 2013
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Ownership and Replacement Costs in Right of Way
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Mike Freeman Presentation - Criminal Stats & Safe Communities (No written report.)
2b. Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes September 9, 2013
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes September 16, 2013
3c. Special City Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2013
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinances
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance adopting fees for 2014 and set Second Reading for October 21, 2013.
6b. Consolidated Public Hearing
(1) 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
(2) 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
(3) 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
Meeting of October 7, 2013
City Council Agenda
(4) 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 4 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
(5) 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 5 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
(6) 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 6 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998
Wooddale Ave
Recommended Action:
• Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Map for 4017
Utica Avenue and 3998 Wooddale Avenue South from R-2 Single-Family
Residence to R-4 Multiple-Family Residence
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Wooddale
Flats with Subdivision Variance and conditions
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for Wooddale Flats with conditions
8b. The West End AUAR Update
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review Update (AUAR) for The West End Redevelopment Project located in
the southwest quadrant of Highways 394 and 100
8c. Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Major Amendment
to the Planned Unit Development for the West End allowing a multiple family dwelling
at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard and in the Office zoning district, subject to conditions.
8d. First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending
Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to definitions; processing
comprehensive plan amendments and planning applications concurrently; fence height
in the front yard; front yard setbacks in commercial zoning districts; compact parking
dimensions; and allowing outdoor seating with food and beverage service in the
Business Park zoning district, and to set the second reading for October 21, 2013.
8e. Public Safety Software Agreement
Recommended Action: Motion to enter into an Agreement with ZuercherTechnologies
LLC in the amount of $494,560 plus annual maintenance fees starting at $74,284 per
year for provision of software licensing and maintenance, hardware provision and
maintenance, and several related services for use of ZuercherTech’s ledsSuite product
offerings to the City of St. Louis Park’s Police and Fire Departments.
9. Communication
Meeting of October 7, 2013
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution approving a contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for 2014
auditing services and also to authorize the City Manager to enter into extensions
through the 2017 audit
4b. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Renewed Lease with the State of
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for Webster Park
4c. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Esther Knops in
the amount of $827.47, Paula Pendleton in the amount of $50, and St. Louis Park
Golden Kiwanis in the amount of $100 for Westwood Hills Nature Center
4d. Approve for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
4e. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
4f. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes April 17, 2013
4g. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 26, 2013
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and
replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and
saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on
the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has developed an outline for addressing private
improvements within the Right of Way that are disturbed during City construction projects and
seeks Council input.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: In connection with the Connect the Park capital improvement
program Council has directed staff to create a draft comprehensive Right of Way (ROW)
management policy for Council to review, comment and adopt. This policy would provide
clarity to the Council, staff and adjacent property owners as the City undertakes future
maintenance, construction and storm cleanup operations in the public Right of Way.
SUMMARY: After researching how the City regulates, manages and repairs damages to items
in the ROW it became evident that not every situation is covered in the city code. Section 24 of
the Code is not clear or silent on many of the private improvements that reside within the ROW
such as fences, retaining walls and irrigation systems. There is also a varied approach to this
across the different departments within the City.
Staff is recommending that in order to fully address how we assign ownership, responsibility and
liability to items within the ROW that a thorough review and update of Chapters 24 “Streets,
Sidewalk and Other Public Places” be completed. This will help to bring clarity to what is
allowed in the ROW and necessary approval processes.
However, a complete review and approval of this section of the City Code will take a
considerable amount of time. In order to stay ahead of the Connect the Park trail and sidewalk
capital improvement program staff has put together an outline of the requirements and
procedures we believe are the “Best Management Practices” for ROW stewardship. Staff desires
direction on what has been proposed.
Staff recommends that the City not take responsibility for any item within the ROW that the
adjoining property owner has installed. The adjoining property owner would be responsible for
removing/ relocating the item at the request of the City and responsible for fixing any damage to
the item. This is consistent with how the majority of our ROW permits are handled.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Any modifications to the current
management procedures and practices will have a direct result on the City’s operating budget.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
1 - Application for Temporary Private Use of Public Land
2 - Application for Work in Public Right of Way
3 - City Fee Schedule Associated with ROW Activities
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
DISCUSSION
NEXT STEPS: The goal is to clearly define the ownership and the fiscal responsibility for
removal or replacement of private improvements located within the public ROW.
The two areas that staff has reviewed for this discussion are City Code Chapter 24 “Streets,
Sidewalk and Other Public Places” and the “Best Management Practices” that have been used by
staff. These two areas will be combined to create the City’s policy on ownership and
replacement of private improvements in the ROW.
Also, the following existing processes need to be updated for consistency and concurrence as
part of this process: “Application for Temporary Private Use of Public Land”, the “Application
for Work in Public Right of Way and the fee structure “City Fee Schedule Associated with ROW
Activities”.
After analysis staff believes the most logical way to discuss ownership and responsibility of the
ROW is to discuss the items in two categories; items that are below ground and items that are
above ground.
Below Ground
- Items in the ROW below ground such as irrigation systems can be allowed to encroach as
they cause little risk to public safety. However, repair due to damage and/or removal of
the irrigation system should not the responsibility of the City.
- Underground pet containment fences should not be in the ROW. In cases where sidewalk
is present this could create a public safety risk of pets encroaching on to public sidewalks.
- Staff recommends that residents be required to get a permit for installing irrigation in the
ROW. This will ensure the system is installed properly and that the property owner
knows that they could be damaged by upcoming City construction activities. However,
staff believes that the $150 fee is a deterrent for residents, and suggests waiving the fee.
The benefits to the City of knowing that this type of facility is in the ROW far outweigh
the fees that are collected.
Above Ground
- Items in the ROW above ground (i.e. retaining walls, fences, boulders, planters,
sculptures, etc.) that could present a public safety risk, impede snow removal / storage or
could create a visual obstruction should not be allowed in the ROW without City
approval.
- An exception would be United States Post Office approved mail boxes
- For any above ground item that is requested to be within the ROW an “Application for
Temporary Private Use of Public Land” permit would be required.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY: The term right of way (ROW) refers to the street and area
on either side of the street used to support the use of the road including the sidewalk, roadway
shoulders, ditches and boulevards. This also extends to the area below and above the roadway.
This space becomes the conduit for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and the many public and
private utilities that traverse the City.
This area is governed by the City and all activities within this area are regulated by City Code
Chapters 24 “Streets, Sidewalk and Other Public Places” and Chapter 30 “Traffic and Vehicles”.
The multitude of items within the ROW can be categorized in to three types of ownership:
1. City owned facilities.
a. Items such as roads, utilities, signs, trees, art and retaining walls, etc.
2. Utilities owned by private companies and permitted by City Code.
a. Items such as CenterPoint Energy, Xcel Energy, Fiber Optic communications, etc.
3. Privately owned improvements that are either placed in the ROW under permit or done so
without City approval.
a. Items such as driveways, landscaping, irrigation, electric pet containment, etc.
The ROW needs to be carefully regulated and managed by the City to ensure the public’s interest
is protected and to minimize issues when activities happen within the ROW.
Typically items within the ROW are impacted by planned construction activities (pavement
management), routine maintenance (snow plowing/removal, tree removal) or by emergency
situations (storm damage).
The topic of who owns and is responsible for maintaining the items in the ROW is most often
brought up during construction activities such as the City’s pavement management program or in
other instances when these facilities have been damaged.
In addition, the recent Council approval of the Sidewalk, Trail and Bikeway Capital
Improvement Project will have considerable impact to the private improvements within the right
of way. Many of these new sidewalks will be placed in the ROW boulevards that currently have
vegetation, irrigation systems or electric pet containment fencing.
The following is a list of many of the typical items that can be found within the City ROW.
CITY OWNED
Streets/curb and gutter
Sidewalks/trails
Street Lighting
Watermain/fire hydrants
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Sewer
City Fiber Optic
Street signs/sign monuments
Other City’s utilities (Minneapolis Water)
Trees
Art
Retaining walls
Fences/Bollards/Monuments
Streetscape
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
PRIVATE COMPANIES
(ROW PERMIT NEEDED)
Water/Sewer services
Gas-Centerpoint Energy
Electric-Xcel
Street Lighting (by Xcel)
CommunicationsFiber
Optic/Communications
Bus benches/shelters
Eruv Wires
Dumpsters (temporary)
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalk and out-walks
Driveways
Landscaping (grass, trees, flower beds)
Fences
Irrigation
Electric pet containment fences
Driveways (standard/heated/decorative)
Little Libraries
Retaining walls
Mail boxes
Signs
Sump pump discharges
There are inconsistences between how these various items are managed by the City and is responsible
for the repair/replacement if they are damaged. This inconsistency creates confusion and frustration
for property owners and staff.
Staff has surveyed our neighboring communities to understand their policies on ROW management. The
majority of the other cities consider any private improvements that are damaged within the ROW to
be the responsibility of the private owner and not the City. Although we have a similar position, we
acknowledge that this is more of a practice than a policy. For items such as trees or sidewalks in the
public right of way the policy of who is responsible for these varies from city to city.
WHO OWNS THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY?
According to the City Attorney, although there may be instances where the city has complete
ownership of the right of way, in most instances the city's interest is an easement for use as a public
right of way. If the city vacates the right of way because it is no longer needed, ownership reverts to
the underlying fee owners, which would typically be the abutting property owners. As the owner of
a right of way easement, the city generally has the right to preclude any encroachments or use of the
right of way by adjoining property owners which can potentially interfere with the city's use of the
right of way, In an urban setting, this usually translates into the cities right to exclude virtually any
private activity in the right of way if it chooses to do so. Some cities will allow an adjoining owner,
by an encroachment agreement, in limited circumstances to put certain non-structural site
improvements in an unused portion of a right of way on the condition that the property owner remove
the improvement at his or her expense if the city needs to use the right of way
WHO IS LIABLE FOR CLAIMS ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS?
The City Attorney has provided the opinion that the city is the liable party for any claims relating to
the maintenance and repair of all public sidewalks. The adjoining property owner is only potentially
liable if he or she affirmatively does something that creates a hazard on the sidewalk. Simply failing
to shovel the sidewalk or remove ice that naturally occurs does not create potential liability.
According to statute, with the exception of sidewalks adjoining a city owned property, the City is
immune from any liability for slip and fall type claims, so long as the city, just like the adjoining
property owner, has not done anything to affirmatively create the hazardous situation. So in the
normal accumulation of snow and ice situation the city is immune. Also, generally a person out
walking in snow and ice situations in Minnesota has, in most circumstances, assumed a risk.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
In the repair situation, the city has discretionary immunity in that it has the right to determine what
level of resources it wants to invest in sidewalk maintenance versus other city functions. The City
and Staff would typically also have official immunity in implementing a sidewalk repair
protocol. Potential liability may arise if the city has been notified of a hazardous situation, especially
one that is not readily apparent to a sidewalk user, and does not take any reasonable steps to warn or
correct the situation. Claims submitted to the City are routed through the League of Minnesota
Insurance Trust (LMCIT) our insurance provider. LMCIT handles any claim management activities,
reviews situations, handles follow up and documentation and makes determination on liability.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT #1
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Private Use of Public Land
Temporary Private Use Application
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Utilities Superintendent: _______________________
FEE: $5.00 Application Date: ____________________________
Directions: Fill out this form in duplicate by typing or printing in ink. All items must be completed. If the spaces provided
are insufficient, use additional sheets, keying information to the proper item number.
1. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Name of Applicant: (last) (first) (middle)
2. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Telephone: Home Work
3. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Address of Applicant (house # and street) (city) (state) (zip code)
4. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Location of requested use (abutting public property address)
5. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Purpose of requested use
6. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
(last) (middle) (first)
Name of Current Fee Owner of Private Abutting Property
7. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
(house # and street) (city) (state) (zip code)
Address of Current Fee Owner of Private Abutting Property
8. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Legal Description of Abutting Property
(check one) Abstract Prop._____ Torrens Prop.________
9. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Present Use of Abutting Property
Attach a site plan indicating the location of all property lines, curbs, sidewalks, fire hydrants, light poles, trees,
utilities, etc.
__________________________________________
Signature of applicant
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
POLICY FOR
TEMPORARY PRIVATE USE
Policy Statement
Property owners adjacent to City owned land or public easements will from time to time request
consideration from the City to allow the owner to acquire a portion of the City land, vacate a
City right of way or easement, or authorize temporary use of City land. The City acknowledges
that it only desires to own land or easements that serve a present or future public purpose, meet
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or provide open space for flora and fauna, and provide
environmental protection. In response, the City will allow the release or use of public land and
easements in accordance with this policy and its established criteria.
Temporary Private Use
An abutting property owner may desire the temporary use of public land. Temporary private use
of public land are those uses which provide a convenience to a property owner, but are not
essential for the operation of business or residential use of the property. These uses include
commercial uses such as outdoor seating for restaurants, fences, canopies, irrigation systems,
sidewalk sales, etc.; or residential uses such as driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, shrubs, or
gardens.
Eligibility
1. Eligibility of an applicant to request private temporary use of public land.
a. Applicant shall be the owner of land adjacent to and abutting the land requested to
be temporarily used.
b. The applicant’s property shall not be delinquent on any property taxes.
2. Eligibility of the land to be temporarily used.
a. The land must not have been acquired by the City through tax delinquency
(forfeiture) or dedication.
b. The land must not be designated on the Comprehensive Plan as park land.
c. Land must be under the jurisdiction of the City.
d. The private use of the property shall not impede any public use of the property.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
Application Requirements
1. Applicant must present documentation justifying the need for the additional land.
2. All structures or uses proposed must be temporary in nature, and shall be in conformance
with all applicable codes and ordinances (Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
Uniform Building Codes, etc.)
3. Applicant must provide the following:
a. Application fee.
b. Proof of ownership of the adjacent private property.
c. Legal description of the adjacent private property.
d. Description of the public property being requested.
e. A site plan, drawn to scale, indicating the proposed location of any structures/uses
to be placed on public land. This site plan shall show the location of all property
lines, curbs, sidewalks, fire hydrants, light poles, trees, utilities, etc.
Procedure
1. The applicant shall submit an application to the Public Works Department for the private
use of public property together with all application requirements.
2. The Public Works Department shall determine whether the application meets all of the
requirements of this policy and also determine what appropriate fees, if any, should be
charged to the applicant to cover any City costs which may be associated with the
proposed use or structure being placed on City land or right of way.
3. If the applicant’s request is granted, the applicant shall execute an Encroachment
Agreement, in the form approved by the City, for the use of public property. (The
agreement contains a clause which exempts the City from any responsibility for loss or
damage to any structure. The agreement also contains a clause which allows the City to
terminate the agreement with a 30-day notification.)
4. If the Public Works Department denies any application for the temporary public service
use of a public right of way or easement, the applicant may appeal the decision to the
City Council within 30 days of that decision.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ________ day of _________________, _____,
by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (“City”), and ________________ and ________________ (“Owner”).
1. BACKGROUND. Owner is the fee owner of (address) _________
___________________ in the City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, and
State of Minnesota (“subject property”). The City owns the adjacent property upon
which the Owner (description of temporary activity) ______________________
_____________________________________ which ________ (will/does)
encroach on the City’s property.
2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby
approves the temporary encroachment on its property for the ________________
______________________________________, except over existing utilities.
3. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY. In consideration of being
allowed to encroach on the City’s property, Owner, for themselves, their heirs and
assigns, hereby agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage
caused to the subject property, including the ______________________________
on the subject property, caused in whole or in part by the encroachment onto the
City’s property.
4. DAMAGES. Any damage occurring on the City property, described
in Article 2. Above, caused by Owner or Owner’s heirs, assigns or contractor shall
be repaired at Owner’s expense to the satisfaction of the City.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 10
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
5. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. The City may, at its sole
discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the Owner of the
subject property thirty (30) days advance written notice. The property owner shall
remove the __________________________________ by the effective date of
termination of this Agreement. If the Owner fails to do so the City may remove the
________ ______________________ at the Owner’s expense.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK OWNER
____________________________________ _______________________________________
Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attest: Reviewed for Public Works Department
____________________________________ _______________________________________
Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _________________ day of
_____________________________, 200__, by ______________________________, and
______________________________.
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Drafted By:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuch, P.A.
1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 317
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Telephone: (612) 452-5000
RNK:srn
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 11
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT #2
Special Study Session Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 12
Title: Ownership and Replacement Costs in the Right of Way
SUPPORTING DOCUMENT #3
City Fee Schedule Associated with ROW Activities
City of St. Louis Park – 2013 Fees
Service 2013 Fee/Charge
Accounting
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way without a per mit $100
Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $50 per hole
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet minimum $400)
Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $10 per 10 linear feet
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Superintendent Metz will be providing a
presentation to the City Council on the upcoming school referendum
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Superintendent Metz has asked for the opportunity to make an appearance before
the City Council to provide a presentation on the three proposed questions that will be on the
ballot during the election in November
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Referendum PowerPoint Presentation
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Referendum Introduction Election Day is Tuesday, November 5th PLEASE VOTE!
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 2
St. Louis Park Public Schools Brand
•Very Academic
•Innovative
•Welcome Diversity
•Historical Community Support
–Commitment to Lifelong Learning
•Perfect Size
–Participation
–Relationships
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 3
Referendum: Background •District enrollment growth over the past 5 years
•Most schools nearing capacity, causing space concerns
•Elementary Principals, teachers and parent reps worked with Wold Architects and Engineers to make recommendations to the School Board for additions
•All schools and centers are aging and need maintenance
•The school district’s technology levy is up also for renewal
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 4
Referendum: Question #1 •Question 1 … Capital Project Levy (Technology Levy) for $1.75 million over 10 years (approximately $17,500,000)
–Renewal of existing Technology Levy
–Technology maintenance needs and enhancement
–Continuation of school district’s 21st Century Technology initiatives
•This is a “revoke” and “approve” ballot question because we are going to voters one year early
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 5
Referendum: Question #2 •Question 2 … Bond Issue for $14.9 million (Bond for Buildings) over 9 years
–Building additions at Elementary Schools:
•Aquila (3 classrooms)
•Peter Hobart (3 classrooms & cafeteria)
•Susan Lindgren (3 classrooms)
–Roofs, HVAC, tuckpointing, parking lots, flooring, remodeling, and other deferred maintenance to improve energy efficiency.
•Districtwide – schools and community centers
–All Schools
–Lenox Community Center: Building Security (main entrance reconfiguration) & Kitchen Remodel
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 6
Referendum: Question #3 •Question 3 … Referendum Revenue Authorization of $1.1 million additional dollars annually for 10 years (Levy for Learning)
–Begins fiscal year 2015
•Provides funding for general operations of the schools and classrooms (i.e. class size, educational programming, etc.) to maintain academic quality and competitive advantage
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 7
Referendum: Tax Impact •Average St. Louis Park home is valued at $200,000; tax impact for all three questions is $82/annually or $6.83/month
–With the estimated Refunding Opportunity, taxes would decrease: the amount to be determined.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 2b)
Title: Presentation by Rob Metz, St. Louis Park Superintendent of Schools Page 8
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Deputy Police Chief
(Mr. DiLorenzo), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Director of Community
Development (Mr. Locke), Interim Director of Engineering (Mr. Sullivan), Senior Planner (Mr.
Walther), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
Guest: Jeff Miller (Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi))
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 23, 2013
Mr. Harmening advised that Council needs to approve Second Reading of the franchise
ordinance extension for Xcel Energy and CenterPoint on September 23rd and the study session
agenda will likely include discussion of SWLRT.
2. SWLRT: General Update and Update on the Louisiana LRT Station Area Planning
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and introduced Mr. Jeff Miller from HKGi and also
introduced Advisory Committee members Chad Pederson, Michael Kelner, and Duane Spiegle.
Mr. Miller presented a diagram of the Louisiana Avenue station study area and stated the goals
and objectives include creating a unified future vision for the district, assisting in the creation of
goals and design guidelines for future land use, and providing input into Preliminary Engineering
and final design for SWLRT. He then presented the draft Louisiana LRT station area guiding
principles and preliminary concept drawings for a north station and a south station location and
pointed out the assumptions include the eventual removal of the switching wye, the addition of a
southbound freight rail connection, and colocation of freight rail and light rail. He indicated that
key elements of both the north and south station include increased connectivity of the street
network, connecting bus routes to the light rail station, expanded pedestrian network, and
creating a convenient commuting and recreational bike network in this area. He discussed key
elements for the north station land use and development character and presented a development
concept of the north station. He then presented preliminary concept drawings for a south station
location. He advised that a community meeting is scheduled for September 25, 2013, and two
additional Advisory Committee meetings will be held in October and November, with the final
plan presented to Council in December.
Mr. Walther indicated the Advisory Committee is working to come up with plans for either
station location and is not trying to choose either a south or north platform location.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of September 9, 2013
Mr. Harmening pointed out these plans include the important assumption that the CP swap
occurs.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he did not have a preference for either the south or north station
location.
Councilmember Sanger stated the south station is close to Minnehaha Creek and was concerned
that the guiding principles do not include increasing public access to the creek and/or increasing
green space and felt that should be tied into the plans. She indicated the staff report includes the
amount of square footage for development for the south station and requested that staff provide
the same data for the north station. She expressed concern about safety particularly for
employees working at night and requested that the final plan include more information about
lighting for safety. She added she did not know how realistic it was to assume people would
walk a quarter-mile mile at night to get to a light rail station so the southern location would be
preferable.
Councilmember Mavity agreed with the concerns regarding safety and the environment and
indicated her concern with a northern station location is that until the area is fully developed, it
does not feel safe. She stated her preference for the south station location and the potential for a
public/private partnership, adding she felt this area could be a model for the entire system.
Councilmember Spano stated Met Council has indicated that if there are economic development
partnerships to explore for moving station locations, they need to be in place this fall. He asked
if staff has discussed potential economic development opportunities and felt that Council would
need to weigh in at some point about whether there is interest in putting City money into these
opportunities. He expressed concern that the Advisory Committee has no representation from
Meadowbrook and asked if staff has received any input from Meadowbrook residents.
Mr. Walther replied that staff has made attempts to recruit Meadowbrook residents but has not
been successful in those attempts and stated that staff is considering a separate community
meeting to obtain input from the Meadowbrook residents.
Councilmember Spano suggested that the City hold a community meeting at Meadowbrook. He
expressed thanks and appreciation to the Advisory Committee for their input.
Councilmember Ross stated she favors the south location. She stated she also favors a parking
structure in this area because the impact of traffic would probably be better absorbed at this
station. She noted that Methodist has a parking lot to the north that may provide an opportunity
for pursuing a public/private parking structure. She added she has not seen much in the plans in
terms of collaboration with MTC and felt that bus service needs to be expanded.
Councilmember Santa agreed with previous Councilmember comments. She requested further
information regarding the statement in the staff report that other precedent areas had been studied
where a light rail station was located close to a medical facility. She indicated if the City intends
to push for moving the station to the south, it would be important to have concrete data regarding
ridership, safety, etc. to support its position.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of September 9, 2013
Ms. McMonigal stated that staff will be meeting with the SPO tomorrow to discuss ridership
models and assumptions and agreed to bring more specific information to Council in the near
future.
Mayor Jacobs expressed support for a south station location.
Mr. Locke stated the “CP swap” has been discussed at several SWLRT meetings as well as the
south connection for freight rail. He presented a diagram of the corridor depicting the TC&W
route where it joins with the BNSF tracks and also presented a diagram of the SPO’s proposed
base plan that shows the SWLRT traveling on the south side until it gets back on the north side at
Minneapolis’s Royalston station and indicated there are a lot of advantages to this plan for the
project as well as for St. Louis Park. He pointed out that redevelopment opportunities and major
land uses are best served by a station with light rail on the south side of freight rail. He
presented a diagram depicting corridor ownership and the existing regional trail and stated the
right of way owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority is on the north side of the
corridor and CP owns the south side where the freight tracks are located today. The intent would
be to swap the locations so that CP tracks would be on the north side. He discussed the
switching wye and explained that if the CP tracks move to the north and the light rail tracks
move to the south, the wye is severed and in order to maintain that connection, the SPO has
planned a south connection. He pointed out the SPO’s design does not include removal or
relocation of the existing salt business and explained the relocation of this business is not needed
for the operation of SWLRT. SPO does not need to do acquire the salt business property to
accomplish its goal of implementing light rail project and handling TC&W freight traffic.
Councilmember Mavity advised she spoke with Hopkins Councilmember Youakim who
indicated Hopkins strongly supports the swap and making sure it happens because of the impact
on the Blake Road station.
Councilmember Spano suggested that Hopkins and St. Louis Park consider issuing a joint
statement of support for the swap.
Mr. Locke stated the total cost for this swap and the south connection is estimated at $65 million
and this has raised questions as to its need. He then presented a diagram showing Louisiana
station location with no CP swap and stated the SPO acknowledged that the station location is
not conducive to ridership and this scenario would not produce significant development
opportunities. He noted the $65 million is already in the base plan, and locating the Louisiana
station at the switching wye, which would require acquisition of the salt business property and
other actions, would require an additional $18-$20 million.
Mr. Harmening advised that the CMC will be meeting on Wednesday and updates will be
provided to Council.
3. Deer Management Policy
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and policy question for Council consideration.
Councilmember Santa stated the bottom line policy question is whether the Cultural Carrying
Capacity (CCC) has changed after the unfortunate incident last year and indicated she did not
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of September 9, 2013
want to do anything outside the Nature Center and preferred to wait and see if the CCC changes
and then make a decision.
Councilmember Ross stated she was in favor of leaving the deer management policy as is and
did not want to change the policy.
Councilmember Spano indicated he previously requested some clarity on the mechanics of
implementing this policy, including information about the use of frangible ammunition, use of
the Police Department versus use of contractors, as well as the potential use of bow and arrow to
manage the deer population. He stated he was not comfortable shooting deer in densely
populated urban areas and preferred to stay out of these areas until the City can better articulate
the mechanics of this issue. He added he agreed with continuing to remove deer at the Nature
Center.
Councilmember Mavity stated her strong opposition to the discharge of firearms in densely
populated urban areas and indicated she had less strong feelings about deer removal at the Nature
Center. She questioned the utility of the numbers contained in the staff report given the deer
population in Minneapolis and Golden Valley. She added she felt the City could do a better job
in educating residents about deer tolerant plants and shrubs.
Councilmember Sanger felt the City should leave the current deer management policy as is and
stated she was in favor of continuing deer removal consistent with DNR principles. She stated
she would like Council to further consider the question of using the Police Department to
implement the policy rather than hiring contractors. She added that providing notice at the
beginning of the season should be sufficient and anything more specific was unrealistic.
Councilmembers Santa and Ross agreed.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out the current policy is not to shoot deer because Council put
the policy on hold earlier in the year. She stated she would support a policy in which the City
would not remove deer in public or private areas other than the Nature Center.
Councilmember Sanger requested confirmation that there is currently no deer contraceptive that
is effective and useful in Minnesota.
Ms. Walsh replied that some states are testing deer contraceptives but as of right now this is not
an option in Minnesota.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed the City has a deer problem and stated the unfortunate incident
created a much bigger issue and to that end, he felt the deer management policy should be
changed back to the original program that allows deer removal only at the Nature Center.
Mayor Jacobs stated the City has been successful in removing deer from the Nature Center and
stated he was not in favor of taking deer out of the Lake Forest neighborhood.
Councilmember Spano stated he was in favor of suspending the policy adding he was not
opposed to taking deer but was opposed to the unsafe circumstances experienced last season and
wanted to have additional information from staff addressing his earlier requests before making a
decision.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of September 9, 2013
Councilmember Mavity felt that the better question for Council is whether the deer management
policy is effective given the deer population in neighboring communities and whether the City’s
policy is going to have a substantial impact on managing the deer population.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to suspend the current deer management
policy for the 2013-2014 season with the understanding that deer removal efforts can take place
at the Nature Center if needed using the same procedures utilized in the past.
4. Public Right of Way – Ownership, Maintenance, and Replacement Policy
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report.
Councilmember Ross felt it would be helpful to have a clear policy in place and stated one of the
issues that residents have raised has to do with responsibility for water main repairs.
Ms. Walsh indicated the City currently has a policy regarding responsibility for repairs to the
water line from a home to the street.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if the City has a permitting process for underground sprinklers and
invisible fencing.
Mr. Sullivan replied the City requires that residents obtain a permit for these items but residents
usually do not adhere to this policy. He added the permit fee is $125 and the resident must sign
agreements noting that the City has the right to remove these items at any time. He added this
policy has been in place for approximately ten years.
Councilmember Hallfin noted it would be helpful to get the date of that policy because of
grandfathering issues for residents who installed these items prior to the effective date.
Mr. Sullivan agreed to provide this information and added the City Code dictates what can be in
the right of way.
Councilmember Sanger agreed that a draft policy should be prepared for Council review and
requested that the policy address who is responsible for maintaining the right of way as well as
who bears what cost. She indicated she wanted to understand who owns the right of way and to
the extent the City owns a right of way, she also wanted to understand the City’s justification for
charging people for work done on City-owned land or in requiring people to maintain City-
owned land. She noted the width of a right of way varies considerably and questioned how the
City could have a consistent policy; in addition, the City has certain things in the right of way
that are always maintained by the City, e.g., fire hydrants or street lights, and there are other
things the City requires the homeowner to maintain, e.g., sidewalks or trees in the right of way.
Councilmember Mavity stated her immediate concern relates to the sidewalk plan and the
message she heard from residents and staff was that residents would be made whole if a sidewalk
is installed on their property and was concerned that all the money and work that residents have
put into their properties is torn up to install a sidewalk and it does not appear the homeowner will
be made whole.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of September 9, 2013
Councilmember Santa stated that residents do not know what is or is not in the right of way or
who owns what and she would like to get some sense of where the right of way is located.
Councilmember Mavity felt that trying to give direction to staff right now on a right of way
policy feels overwhelming and without urgency given the many significant projects going on in
the City.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a
comprehensive right of way management policy for Council review.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity requested that Council have a study session discussion about design
guidelines or planning guidelines for the area on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard.
Mr. Harmening indicated the City’s plan by neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan
includes the need to do some design guidelines and planning for this area and what the City
wants to see happen between the commercial and residential area. He added the City plans to
have someone provide assistance with this work during 2014.
The meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. Community Development Initiative Process (CDI) – Wooddale Station Area
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue
Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr.
Morrison), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. 2013 Evergreen Awards
Mayor Jacobs presented the 2013 Evergreen Awards to Susan Czapiewski and Kevin
Sundquist (4910 W. 27th Street) and to Wendy and Patrick Skinner (3336 Huntington
Avenue South) and congratulated this year’s award winners.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes August 12, 2013
Councilmember Mavity requested that the sixth paragraph on page 7 be revised to read
“Councilmember Mavity stated the Beltline discussion needs to include dealing with the
Nordic Ware truck issue and making sure the City has a clear vision for the traffic issues
for Beltline regardless of what happens with light rail.”
Councilmember Santa requested that the final paragraph on page 1 be revised to read
“Councilmember Santa suggested that the City schedule an open house at Lenox to
address any questions or concerns regarding the recycling program by seniors.”
Councilmember Spano requested that a paragraph be inserted between the seventh and
eighth paragraphs on page 4 that states, “Councilmember Spano felt that the City’s
primary responsibility was to ensure that TIF notes were paid off and that it was not the
City’s responsibility to engineer a specific mix of restaurants in the development.”
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes August 26, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Meeting September 3, 2013
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Reappoint the following commissioners as a city representative to their respective
commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term Expiration
Richard Webb Housing Authority 6/30/2018
Tyler Dixon Planning Commission – Youth Member 8/31/2014
4b. Approve for filing Telecommunication Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2013
4c. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes June 7, 2013
4d. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
4e. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes August 14, 2013
Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item #4a be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move
Consent Calendar item 4a to the Regular Agenda as item 8c; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. First Reading of Council Salaries Ordinance and Economic Development
Authority Compensation Resolution. Resolution No. 13-135.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
Ms. Deno presented the staff report. She stated that any increase in salaries for the
Mayor and City Council would be effective on January 1, 2014. She noted the last time
Council took action with respect to salaries was in 2010 when Council decreased the
Mayor, City Council, and EDA salaries by 5% due to budget concerns. She presented the
information showing 2014 proposed change for Mayor, Councilmembers, and EDA
salaries is a 2% increase.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger pointed out that the proposed 2% increase is consistent with the
2014 salary increase for City employees and she felt the increase was fair.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Setting Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers
and to set Second Reading for September 23, 2013, and to adopt Resolution No. 13-135
amending the Compensation of the Commissioners of the Economic Development
Authority.
Councilmember Spano asked if the salary comparison information for other metro area
suburbs includes combined salary information for the Mayor, Council, and EDA, or
whether the data includes only Mayor and Council salary information.
Ms. Deno replied that some of the information includes salaries for the Mayor, Council,
and EDA, and some of the information does not include EDA salaries, adding she could
provide further information before the Second Reading if desired. She noted that the
salary information for St. Louis Park lists Mayor and Council salaries separately as well
as Mayor and Council salaries with EDA.
Councilmember Santa stated she was opposed to the increase, adding the increase is
approximately $200 per year, which is less than $5 per week, and the pay itself is more of
a stipend and does not reflect any connection to actual work done.
Councilmember Spano stated he would be voting against the increase, adding he felt that
Council needed to remain sensitive to the proposed increase in the 2014 property tax levy
and overall budget. He added he would be interested in exploring the idea of having the
Charter Commission or some other committee provide advice to Council on this issue.
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Santa and Spano opposed; Councilmember
Ross absent).
6b. Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals Decision – Variances at 4701 Excelsior
Boulevard. Resolution No. 13-136
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained that Elion Acquisitions (Elion) is
proposing to construct a 7,000 square foot retail building at 4701 Excelsior Boulevard
and has requested a 1.0’ variance to the 25’ drive aisle width and a 10’ variance to the
required 15’ side yard abutting the street. He noted the purpose of the side yard variance
is to address an unintentional irregularity in the Zoning Ordinance that states the shorter
of the two lot lines adjacent to the streets is the front lot line and in this case, Natchez
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
Avenue is the front lot line and Excelsior Boulevard is the side yard. He stated the
property is impacted by circumstances beyond the owner’s control and the variance
request is consistent with other similar uses. He explained that the initial plan was
discussed at a neighborhood meeting and concerns were raised including parking lot
noise, screening along the south property line, impact to trees, only one access to the
parking lot, traffic volume increase, parking in the neighborhood, and lighting; as a
result, the applicant submitted a revised plan to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA)
that reduced the building to 7,000 square feet with 29 parking stalls, replaced the 42”
fence with an 8’ masonry wall, and showed two driveway access points including a right-
in only off Excelsior Boulevard. He advised the plan was revised following the BOZA
meeting to include 28 parking spaces, the addition of a landscape island along the south
property line, the masonry wall has been increased to 9’, and the applicant has agreed to
plant trees on the other side of the property. He added that in order to address pedestrian
movement along Natchez, the applicant has also agreed to extend the sidewalk across the
driveway apron to better define pedestrian movements. He stated that the applicant will
use downcast LED lighting attached to the screening wall and building and there will be
no light spillover. He presented several drawings of the proposed building and explained
that the variance to the side yard would provide sufficient space to allow the applicant to
construct the masonry wall and the variance to the setback along Excelsior Boulevard
would allow for the parking lot to be located behind the building. He indicated that
according to the national average, a gas station with eight pumps would generate about
1,300 trips per weekday as opposed to 290 trips per day generated by a 7,000 square foot
retail building. He stated the variance request is consistent with new development on
Excelsior Boulevard and presented several pictures of existing buildings on the south side
of Excelsior Boulevard, adding that thirteen of these buildings are oriented toward the
street and the subject property is the only one with the front oriented on the side street.
He indicated the variance request is also consistent with the Park Commons Concept
Plan’s livable community goals.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Ms. Hillary Stewart, 4712 Vallacher Avenue, stated she lives directly behind the BP gas
station and requested that Council table action on this variance request. She stated she
was concerned about her property value going down and also was concerned about the
quality of life for her and the residents of Minikahda Vista. She stated she understood the
importance of this parcel and was not against development, but requested that Council
take a step back to let the residents of Minikahda Vista have further conversations with
the architect. She felt the whole process was rushed and they did not have enough time to
go over some additional drawings based on the concerns of residents. She reiterated her
request to consider tabling this for a few more weeks so they can have more constructive
conversations and to address concerns about the amount of traffic in this area.
Mr. Jon Schaefer, 3913 Lynn Avenue, stated the redevelopment presented concerns for
all of the Minikahda Vista residents. He stated he went to the 3800 and 3900 block of
Lynn Avenue to get signatures for the petition that states they want their voices heard
regarding redevelopment of the south side of Excelsior Boulevard and every person
signed the petition. He stated they are not anti business but they want to get it right and
want their voices heard, adding he supported the request to table this matter.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
Mr. Alan Floyd, 3400 Glenhurst, stated he offered to speak regarding his experience
living near a development with parking in the rear and indicated he lives close to the
Ellipse. He stated they have experienced numerous problems including noise from
snowplowing in the middle of the night, noise from parking lot maintenance at 1:00 a.m.
on more than one occasion, and light intrusion because promised plantings were not
installed, adding there has been a recent move to address the planting issue. He felt it
was important to maintain neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and supported his neighbors
in their request for additional time to consider this project and to get it right.
Ms. Lyn Wik, 3965 Quentin Avenue S., thanked Council for listening and stated that
Excelsior Boulevard is a seven-lane road in many places, which means it will not be
pleasant to walk along. She stated this is about establishing guidelines for the future and
felt if guidelines had been developed in 2001 when they asked for them, maybe the
concerns with this project would not be an issue. She asked that Council vote to table
this variance request and give the architects and residents more time to develop a creative
alternative that is pleasing to everyone.
Ms. Erica Gibbons, 4724 Vallacher Avenue, stated she shares a property line with the
commercial business and has been involved in these discussions. She stated she was
aware of the City’s vision to push buildings to the front but was not sure that this makes
sense for the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. She stated the north side has a
walkability factor and there is room for trees that adds an extra buffer but this will not be
part of the current proposal. She stated their neighborhood has expressed numerous
concerns and felt these issues could be worked out with the architect through proper
planning. She questioned why they have not seen a proposal placing the building at the
back of the lot and felt this was a viable option that would alleviate most concerns and
would not require a variance. She felt this new development would set the tone for how
the rest of the south side would be developed and asked Council to table its decision to
allow the residents to work with the architect and explore an alternative design acceptable
to all parties and to make sure this is done right.
Mr. Patrick Skinner, 3336 Huntington Avenue, stated he did not support this proposal
given the angst he was hearing from neighbors about the impact and he felt that that angst
would carry over to the next project. He felt there was a way to make this project happen
without the minimized setback and he asked the developer and the City to further
consider this. He stated his bigger concern related to the fact that this project has the
potential to set a precedent for future projects and it was important to make sure that
zoning is developed across the City in a thoughtful manner that creates comprehensive
predictability where variances are granted only in extreme hardship or extreme
impracticability. He stated if this variance request is granted, the City will have the same
fight on the same topics with the same people on every future project and urged Council
to take a step back and to develop design guidelines for the whole corridor that sets
expectations for future projects. He added he was hopeful that Council would pause and
give serious consideration to developing guidelines for all of Excelsior Boulevard.
Ms. Maura Howard, 4815 Vallacher Avenue, stated they are excited to see new
development and they appreciate Council’s willingness to listen, but the residents of
Minikahda Vista were brought in late to this process and she felt that with more time they
could come up with the best possible scenario for all projects along the south side of
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
Excelsior Boulevard. She stated she located a 2001 memo that talks about the need for
mechanisms whereby residents have control over development over small sectors and she
asked that Council table this decision to provide more time to get this right for the health
and vibrancy of their community.
Mr. Paul Jennings, 3925 Joppa Avenue S., stated his belief that this would not be the last
appeal heard by the City regarding the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. He indicated
the developer did not identify how many trees would be chopped down for the parking lot
and this will result in loss of privacy for those on Vallacher Avenue. He stated they went
through a design guideline process for Wooddale Flats, the Ellipse, and Methodist, and
did not understand why the City has not developed design guidelines for this area.
Mr. Steve Buffington, 3800 Huntington Avenue S., spoke in favor of tabling the variance
request. He stated he would like the City to follow-up on the request of the neighbors to
have a say in what happens along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard, adding the City
does have a precedent for developing design guidelines. He stated the south side of
Excelsior Boulevard is different than the north side because the lots are shallower and
back up to a residential area and there is a potential for excessive light and traffic. He
expressed concern about the traffic generated by this proposal and how that traffic will
compete with the residents on Natchez.
Ms. Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Avenue S., thanked Council for listening to
the residents and requested that Council table this matter for the same reasons cited
earlier. She stated that residents have asked in the past what was going to happen to the
south side of Excelsior Boulevard and the City has previously indicated that it had not yet
been decided what would happen with the south side. She urged Council to table this
matter and to give the residents a month to work with the developer and architect. She
then presented a petition to the City Council for inclusion in the record.
Mr. Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, Inc., 333 Washington Avenue N., Minneapolis,
stated there has been a lot of thoughtful discussion between the neighbors and City staff
and it falls on the architect to sort out all of the opinions, concepts, etc., from the
community, the developer, and the City and to come up with the best plan, including the
City’s desire to transform Excelsior Boulevard from a strip commercial street into more
of a commercial center with a pedestrian environment. He indicated that they could put
the building in the back but from the City’s standpoint, this would set a precedent that
would waste all of the City’s past efforts for this area. He indicated there have been three
neighborhood meetings with a lot of discussion about the direction for Excelsior
Boulevard and they have revised their plans by scaling back the square footage on the
building, reducing the height of the building, moving the location for the trash, building a
9’ masonry wall, lowering the lighting, and adding trees. He stated it comes down to a
future vision for this street and he felt that placement of the building in the front
continues the City’s vision for this area. He indicated his preference that Council not
table this item and to vote one way or the other on the variance, adding he would
continue to work with the neighborhood.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity thanked all the residents who have been involved in this process
and thanked City staff for their assistance in the overall process. She felt this project
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
represented an impetus to initiate a design guidelines process for the south side of
Excelsior Boulevard and requested confirmation that the City will undertake this effort.
Mr. Harmening confirmed that the Excelsior Boulevard design guideline process would
begin in early 2014.
Councilmember Mavity stated the developer has worked with residents on their questions
about landscaping, trees, lighting, etc., but questioned whether the only answer to getting
this right would be to have the building oriented toward the back instead of the front. She
did not feel it made sense to delay action on this matter, adding this matter is before
Council because of a peculiarity in the City’s Ordinance and she asked if this variance
would be needed if that peculiarity did not exist in the City’s Ordinance.
Mr. Morrison replied that if this property had a 5’ setback on Excelsior Boulevard the
matter would not be before the City Council.
Councilmember Mavity formally requested that staff bring back to Council a fix for this
irregularity in the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with the need to develop design guidelines for the south
side of Excelsior Boulevard. She indicated the Park Commons Concept Plan addressed
some of the issues and requested that the City revise its definitions of front and side yard.
She stated the developer has indicated a willingness to construct a 9’ wall that is more
than required and asked if there was any way to tweak the design to provide more buffers
or perhaps save more of the trees.
Mr. Dovolis stated the plan has been tweaked as much as possible to make it viable retail,
adding he was willing to continue to meet with the residents.
Councilmember Hallfin asked if it was possible to move the three utility junction boxes
to another location to make access for a different driveway location.
Mr. Morrison replied the utility boxes could be moved but at considerable expense for a
project this size. He added even if the utility boxes were moved, the developer still has to
contend with the 50’ setback from the intersection.
Councilmember Spano stated there was a lot of give and take in dealing with Methodist
Hospital’s expansion of their property and he felt that a lot of the same issues were being
raised as part of this project related to landscaping, lighting, and fencing. He felt the
architect was doing all he could to develop this property on the front side, which is the
direction the City is heading as it relates to the south side of Excelsior Boulevard.
Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that the issue before Council was to either
uphold or deny the decision made by BOZA and that the other issues, while equally
important, could be dealt with outside of this decision.
Mr. Scott replied that this was correct and stated Council is deciding the two variance
requests which BOZA decided and which have been appealed to the City Council. He
added that Council also has the authority to impose conditions to the variance, e.g., a
condition on a particular site plan being presented this evening.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
Councilmember Mavity stated she did not want to put conditions on anything that could
constrain future conversations between the neighbors and the developer that might
improve the site plan; at the same time, she wanted to make sure that any landscaping
that was discussed and promised was included in the final design.
Mr. Scott suggested that Council condition its approval of the variance upon the site plan
as presented in the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-136 Upholding the Board of Zoning Appeals’ Decision and Approving
a Variance to Allow a 5.0 Foot Side Yard Abutting the Street and a 24 Foot Parking Lot
Drive Aisle Width for Property Located at 4701 Excelsior Boulevard with the conditions
that the property be developed in accordance with the site plan and lighting plan
presented to the Council and with the conditions that the masonry wall along the south
property line be nine feet tall, the sidewalk along Natchez extend across the driveway and
that the developer work with the neighbors to plant additional trees on their property.
Councilmember Mavity requested that Council’s action also include direction to staff to
address the Zoning Code irregularity as soon as possible as well as directing staff to make
sure the design guideline process moves forward in a timely fashion.
Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmember Mavity’s amendment to the motion.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
6c. Public Hearing First Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise
Ordinance
6d. Public Hearing First Reading of Ordinance Extending CenterPoint Energy
(CPE) Franchise Ordinance
Mr. Harmening presented the staff reports for agenda items 6c and 6d to extend the Xcel
and CPE franchise ordinances through December 31, 2015. He advised there were no
other changes to the ordinances, except that Xcel has agreed to include a provision to
allow the City to charge permit fees for work done by Xcel, adding that CPE currently
allows the City to charge permit fees for this work.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council recently discussed several issues with Xcel
about possible hot spots in the City that are experiencing more frequent power outages
than the norm and asked if Xcel has provided any follow-up to the City.
Mr. Harmening replied staff has contacted Xcel and Xcel has stated they will review and
discuss these issues, adding there are other cities interested in addressing the same issues.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Section 9-610 Relating
to Permit Fees and Section 9-603 Extending the Term of the Northern States Power
Company Franchise and to set Second Reading for September 23, 2013.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
First Reading of Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Ordinance No. 2236-03
Extending the Term of the CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Franchise and to set Second
Reading for September 23, 2013.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Major Amendment to Knollwood Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Resolution No. 13-138.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained that Rouse Properties (Rouse)
proposes to demolish 92,500 square feet of the existing mall, construct 25,000 square feet
of new junior box retail spaces, renovate 71,400 square feet of existing mall area,
construct an 11,500 square foot retail building, renovate existing parking areas and
construct additional parking, as well as storm water improvements to the site. He
presented a diagram of the construction area and outlined the proposed changes to the
site, including parking and docking areas, and stated that parking on the site will be better
defined by landscape islands that will more clearly define the drive aisles on the site. He
stated the proposal also includes pedestrian connections to 36th Street and the addition of
a sidewalk segment along 36th Street. He stated the applicant has submitted a plan to
address storm water on the site that includes a dry pond to address and handle runoff
from the eight acres included in the proposal and the second phase includes replacement
of the dry pond and installation of in-ground tanks at some point in the future. He stated
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has presented an opportunity to address
storm water in this area and is willing to contribute financially to a regional pond to treat
an additional 125-150 acres to the north and east, noting this plan will take some time to
develop but the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with MCWD on this plan.
He explained that the current proposal is for a two-phase fallback plan that handles the
storm water on site; if at some point the regional offsite plan works and the parties agree,
that plan would then come back as a major amendment to the PUD. He further explained
that if the offsite pond does not work, there is still a possibility to treat regionally the
storm water onsite by expanding the in ground tanks to treat the additional 150 acres. He
discussed the parking and traffic flow issues and also discussed the landscaping and
streetscaping options, including pocket parks with seating areas and public art. He
advised that the 11,500 square foot building on the south side will house the Panera
restaurant and will include a drive-thru, adding this will not impact traffic on the site and
no modifications are required under the PUD for this drive-thru. He also discussed the
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
public plazas and pedestrian walkways, pedestrian scale lighting that will help define the
drive lanes and pedestrian walkways and advised that the required minimum parking of
2,059 spaces has been met with 2,175 spaces being proposed. He reviewed the
architectural materials that include glass, stone, brick, and stucco, adding there is a
possibility that some of the elevations along the front may change as tenants are
announced but staff will ensure that all City Code requirements are met prior to issuance
of building permits. He then introduced Mr. Kevin Connell, Vice President of
Development and Construction for Rouse Properties.
Councilmember Santa asked if the plaza outside of the area designated for Applebee’s is
for the general public or whether it will be for outside dining at Applebee’s. She also
asked about what the view will be for residents to the north looking at the mall.
Mr. Morrison replied that Applebee’s has indicated it is not interested in outdoor seating
at this time. He noted that all of the plaza area is private property. He explained there
are a number of trees along 36th Street and there is a possibility that some of those trees
will be lost when the sidewalk is installed. He added there would still be some lights on
the back of the building.
Councilmember Santa requested information about the storm water improvements and
stated she wanted to make sure that the storm water is dealt with appropriately. She
requested clarification that Rouse is not being asked to fund storm water retention for the
100+ acres around their site and is required to fund only their storm water improvements.
Mr. Morrison advised the proposal is for installation of a regional pond whether onsite or
offsite that brings in 125 acres in addition to Knollwood’s 37 acres and confirmed that
Rouse would only be required to pay for storm water improvements to their 37 acres.
Mr. Kevin Connell, Rouse Properties, advised that Rouse has a portfolio of 32 regional
shopping centers and has approximately 22 million square feet of retail space under
management. He stated Knollwood meets their criteria as a priority redevelopment and
they are targeting anchor or junior anchor type retailers with a goal to execute phase 1 of
the redevelopment on this eight-acre portion, to remerchandise the shopping center with
preferred retailers, to add new retail and food service opportunities, and to invigorate the
overall mall. He stated they are investing significant capital that will boost construction
spending in the area, as well as increase both short term and long term employment, and
they have gained significant momentum with retail prospects interested in a redeveloped
property, but they must act timely to retain existing tenants as well as capture new
tenants, adding they hope to initiate work in 2013 and to be in a position to start core
demolition by March 2014. He stated they are not opposed to the addition of the north
sidewalk and they have discussed moving the sidewalk to reduce the number of trees to
be removed and they will continue to work with City staff on that issue. He stated the
storm water management plan includes an on-site dry pond to accommodate the eight-
acre redevelopment project and Rouse feels this meets the technical requirements of the
PUD for storm water treatment as well as the new requirements for ten year storm events,
adding it was their preference to defer construction of that until some other options are
vetted out including the off-site solution. He stated they disagree with the City’s
interpretation of the 2004 PUD amendment that requires Rouse to execute a full-site
solution in two phases by October 2017, stating it was their contention that they are
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 11
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
redeveloping an eight-acre tract thus satisfying the on-site drainage solution for that eight
acres. He added Rouse will address the storm water issues with other projects on the site
but cannot be obligated to a $4 million obligation at this time because it would result in
an infeasible project; in addition, they are executing a project that has a thin margin and
as a publicly traded trust, they are not allowed by policy to report those costs until they
have an approved project, so at this point they are not able to convey that specific
information until the Board has approved it. He noted they have offered to put up escrow
of two times the anticipated cost of the pond to allow them to move forward as they vet
out other solutions, but a $4 million obligation dramatically compromises the project.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concerns about the storm water and was disappointed
to hear that Rouse feels it does not have to come into compliance with the environmental
requirements of the PUD. She stated the 2004 PUD put Knollwood Mall on notice that it
would have to come into compliance with these requirements at the time of its next
project, but Rouse only wants to comply partially at this point and is arguing that it
cannot afford to put forth a standard letter of credit or other financial guarantee for the
whole project. She stated when Rouse took over this property, it had clear notice that this
property included a requirement to complete the storm water management for the entire
site. She felt the City was correct to require full compliance with the environmental
storm water conditions and to require Rouse to provide a letter of credit to make sure this
will be completed within the next four years.
Mr. Connell felt it was a matter of interpretation and reiterated Rouse’s argument that
they are in compliance with the eight acres being redeveloped at this time. He stated they
have a design solution for the eight acres and Rouse does not have a project at this time
for the balance of the site and does not have a means to fund that significant incremental
cost. He stated this project is in financial distress if it has a $4 million obligation for
storm water improvements, reiterating they are not against the storm water improvements
for the eight-acre area being redeveloped. He indicated they previously worked with staff
on other uses for the site but they do not know the timing of those phases but Rouse
understands the storm water requirements and Rouse will execute that work at that time,
adding he did not know if Rouse will have projects to cover this within four years.
Mr. Jim Tiggelaar, LHB Civil Engineers, approached the City Council and stated it is
very typical to do redevelopment commensurate with storm water. He indicated in this
case, Rouse is only developing eight acres of the 37-acre site so it is typical to only do
storm water management for the eight acres. He added he felt the language of the 2004
PUD was subject to wide interpretation.
Councilmember Santa stated that full storm water management on this site has been
repeatedly deferred and without at least some sort of guarantee and end date, she feared
the storm water management would be deferred again.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information about the financial commitment
offered by MCWD.
Mr. Mike Hayman, MCWD, approached the City Council and stated MCWD has been
forthcoming in offering a partnership, adding there is a large regional area that can be
redirected on the site or off-site. He indicated that any financial commitment would have
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 12
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
to be worked out, including the possibility of fronting the private developer’s costs or a
portion of costs for the regional treatment that was not required through the
redevelopment process and that would be moved from the site.
Mr. Scott clarified that the resolution with conditions as proposed provides for the first
stage of storm water improvements, which is the dry pond, and the second phase within
four years that requires Rouse to provide a plan for how to bring their site into
compliance with the PUD. He stated if Rouse wants to go on their own and come in with
a plan separate and apart from MCWD, that would be fine, and the City is in no way,
shape, or form requiring Rouse to enter into any sort of agreement with MCWD. He
stated it was his understanding that working with MCWD was the most efficient and cost
effective way for Rouse to do an on-site underground system, but Rouse is not required to
work with MCWD and Council approval is not conditioned on any agreement with
MCWD.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Rouse would need to come in with a plan and construct
the second phase of the storm water treatment by October 2017.
Mr. Scott replied that this was correct and stated Rouse would need to construct the
second phase by October 2017 and provide a letter of credit to the City to make sure the
second phase is constructed.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-138 amending and restating Resolution No. 04-054 adopted April 19,
2004, Granting an Amendment to an Existing Planned Unit Development for a Shopping
Center over 200,000 Square Feet with a Grocery Story Under Section 36-367 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning for Property Zoned C-2 General
Commercial for Property Located at 8332 State Highway No. 7.
Mr. Connell requested clarification about what the letter of credit would need to entail.
He also expressed concern about the timeline for completing these improvements because
it could take 12-18 months to vet out the off-site solution.
Mr. Scott advised that the letter of credit would include the amount of the estimated cost
of completing the phase 2 storm water improvements to bring the 37-acre site into
compliance. He stated if Rouse can reach agreement with MCWD then the letter of
credit should include Rouse’s share of the cost of these improvements.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
8b. Preliminary/Final Plat – Auto Motion Carwash Addition (3901/3921
Excelsior Blvd.). Resolution No. 13-137.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained this application is a continuation
from a previous meeting for the Auto Motion Carwash Addition to combine two
properties at 3901/3921 Excelsior Boulevard. He stated that Council previously
approved a CUP to modify the existing gas station by adding a car wash with conditions
and pointed out that approval of the plat must be completed before the end of 2013 and a
building permit for the car wash issued before the end of 2013. He presented the site plan
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 13
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
and stated that Council directed staff in July to review compliance of the property and
staff inspected the property on five occasions and no violations were noted.
Mr. Peter Crema, 8912 Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn Park, appeared before the City
Council on behalf of the applicant, Alberto Properties, LLC, and stated his client recently
submitted a letter to City staff indicating his desire to be a good citizen and to invest in
the City by putting $1.4 million into his project and requesting that his project be
approved.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City has had several challenges in the past on certain
properties owned by the applicant even though there were no violations on this property.
She stated it was her understanding that the City has a complaint against the applicant for
a number of violations that include things related to his Auto Motion business and asked
if these violations have been resolved. She added at this point, it appears there are eight
separate violations, each of which carry a $1,000 fine or jail time. She also asked how
these potential fines might impact the applicant’s ability to complete this project.
Mr. Crema stated there has been a complaint issued by the City related to parking that has
not yet been resolved and a second appearance is scheduled in October. He advised that
the proposal for this plat is going to ameliorate these types of fines for violations because
70% of the applicant’s parking spaces are going to go away; in addition, there was a
tenant in the building who will no longer be a tenant.
Councilmember Mavity noted the applicant chopped down a mature tree on City land and
there was another violation on this property of improper signage in the City right-of-way.
Mr. Bertomeu stated he was not aware the signage was a violation and stated it would not
happen again.
Councilmember Mavity asked if Council was allowed to factor into its decision such
things as the applicant’s “F” rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Mr. Scott advised that Council should not factor this into its decision on this matter.
Mr. Bertomeu stated he sells about 500 cars per year through his three dealerships, of
which 496 customers are happy and the ones who are complaining are going to the Better
Business Bureau. He stated that someone who worked for him chopped down the tree on
City land.
Councilmember Mavity urged Mr. Bertomeu to make sure to follow the City Code in the
future, even if there is a disagreement about the Code.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 13-137 Giving Approval for Preliminary and Final Plat of Auto Motion
Carwash Addition.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would not support this, adding she did not support it
from the beginning because she felt that the car wash was too close to residential property
and the City should not permit spot zoning.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3b) Page 14
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of Septemb er 16, 2013
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Sanger and Mavity opposed; Councilmember
Ross absent).
8c. Reappointment of Commissioners (from Consent Calendar).
Councilmember Spano stated there are youth commissioner openings on the Human
Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Police Advisory
Commission, and Telecommunications Advisory Commission and asked what the City is
doing in terms of outreach to public and private schools, youth groups, etc., to encourage
youth members to apply for these commissions.
Mr. Harmening stated that the City conducts its usual advertising as well as outreach with
the public schools to inform them of these opportunities to serve as a youth member on
the City’s Boards and Commissions. He stated the City also works with Karen Atkinson
through Children First and agreed the City could be more robust in its outreach, including
outreach to the private schools.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
reappoint the following commissioners as a City representative to their respective
commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term Expiration
Richard Webb Housing Authority 6/30/2018
Tyler Dixon Planning Commission – Youth Member 8/31/2014
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Ross absent).
9. Communications
None.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia
Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 2446-13.
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Council presented several questions to Xcel during
the meeting with Xcel representatives and she wanted to make sure that Xcel is held
accountable and owes the City a response.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2446-13 Amending St. Louis Park City Code
Section 9-610 Relating to Permit Fees and Section 9-603 Extending the Term of the
Northern States Power Company Franchise.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
2b. Second Reading of Ordinance Extending CenterPoint Energy (CPE)
Franchise Ordinance. Ordinance No. 2447-13.
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2447-13 Amending St. Louis Park City
Ordinance No. 2236-03 Extending the Term of the CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Franchise.
The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent).
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Special City Council Minutes of September 23, 2013
2c. Second Reading of Council Salaries Ordinance.
Ms. Deno presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve Second Reading and adopt Ordinance Setting Salaries for the Mayor and
Councilmembers.
The motion failed 3-3 (Councilmembers Ross, Santa, and Spano opposed; Mayor Jacobs
absent).
Councilmember Spano acknowledged the will of the City Council to increase the salaries
by 2% and stated he would be willing to change his vote so that the Ordinance is
approved.
Mr. Harmening stated this might require a motion to reconsider and agreed to review the
procedures with the City Attorney and report back to Council on the process that would
need to take place if the Council desires to reconsider.
Councilmember Mavity noted the annual increase amounts to approximately $200 and
she supported the increase because she wanted to make sure future Councils are
compensated for their time, particularly since the salaries were reduced for 2010 and have
not been increased since then.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger agreed and stated it will only be harder for future Councils to
catch up if this Council does not pass something now.
Ms. Deno stated that the 2% increase for EDA President and Commissioners for 2014 is
in place since it was adopted by Council at the last meeting on September 16, 2013 by
Resolution No. 13-135.
Councilmember Ross agreed that the $200 annual increase was not significant but did not
feel their salaries should be increased given the City’s increased taxes and fees and the
fact that there are still a lot of people who are struggling in this economy.
Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger announced that STEP would be holding a fundraiser on Friday,
September 27th, with a bridge tournament.
Councilmember Santa announced a joint fundraiser with the St. Louis Park Public
Schools Foundation and STEP on Saturday, October 5th, as part of Parktoberfest. She
stated tickets are $100 with $30 going to STEP and $30 going to the Foundation.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 – 2017 Renewal of Auditor Contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a contract with HLB
Tautges Redpath, LTD for 2014 auditing services and also to authorize the City Manager to enter
into extensions through the 2017 audit.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with the contract
extension for auditing services with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for 2014 - 2017?
SUMMARY: In December 2010, the City Council approved a contract for auditing services for
fiscal year 2010 with three option years after that with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD. Staff has
been extremely satisfied with the high quality work, integrity, professionalism and industry
knowledge displayed by Tautges during the last three audit years. In addition, staff meets
quarterly with Tautges to discuss City business and opportunities to partner together to achieve
results. Some examples are creating a smooth transition plan for the consolidation of the Park
and Recreation Fund into the General Fund as required after the reorganization, and staff worked
with both Tautges and Hennepin County to obtain more detailed information related to property
taxes, including working with the County as they implement a new property tax hardware and
software system over the next few years. Finally, they have helped us with efficiencies in
general with the audit process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Costs for 2014 – 2017 services by HLB
Tautges Redpath, LTD are shown below:
Service 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Financial Audit $43,500 $44,400 $45,300 $46,200 $179,400
CAFR Preparation 8,500 8,700 8,900 9,100 35,200
Single Audit 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,200 16,200
New Client Discount (1,500) (1,000) (500) - (3,000)
Total $54,400 $56,100 $57,800 $59,500 $227,800
The single audit fee will only be assessed if the City is required to have a single audit for that
year. A single audit is required if the City expends $500,000 or more of Federal assistance.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: 2014-2017 Renewal of Auditor Contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On December 20, 2010, Council approved contracting for auditing services
with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD. This was based on an RFP and receipt of seven proposals
from CPA firms. After review of information and interviews, Council made the decision to hire
a new auditing firm, HLB Tautges Redpath LTD, to conduct the audit for the year 2010 and also
approve the contract for auditing services through auditing fiscal year 2013. Proposals were also
received for single audits which are required if the City expends $500,000 or more of Federal
assistance.
The current contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD includes auditing services for the 2013
financial year and will be $52,700, not including single audit. Funds for this service are
budgeted in the general fund.
Original contract amounts:
Service 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Financial Audit $40,000 $40,800 $41,700 $42,600 $165,100
CAFR Preparation 8,000 8,100 8,200 8,300 32,600
Single Audit 3,500 3,600 3,700 3,800 14,600
New Client Discount (6,500) (5,000) (3,500) (2,000) (17,000)
Total $45,000 $47,500 $50,100 $52,700 $195,300
2014 – 2017 Auditing Services
On September 23, 2013, staff provided an informational report to Council summarizing audit
contracting services and recommending continuing services with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD in
2014 with options for continuation through 2017 audit. As discussed in the Council report, the
work done by this firm has been very thorough and they have provided opportunities to advance
some financial systems for the City. HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD has also been an excellent
source for problem solving of unique financial situations as well as a source of education for
staff. HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD provides timely information to Council along with high
quality informational sessions, allowing for answering questions with Council.
Below are the fees for audit services for years 2014 through 2017. Staff is recommending
approval of HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for auditing services for 2014 and authorizing the City
Manager to approve the auditing service contract for 2015 - 2017.
Continued contract rates:
Service 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Financial Audit $43,500 $44,400 $45,300 $46,200 $179,400
CAFR Preparation 8,500 8,700 8,900 9,100 35,200
Single Audit 3,900 4,000 4,100 4,200 16,200
New Client Discount (1,500) (1,000) (500) - (3,000)
Total $54,400 $56,100 $57,800 $59,500 $227,800
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: 2014-2017 Renewal of Auditor Contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH
HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD
FOR AUDITING SERVICES FOR 2014 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO APPROVE EXTENSIONS THROUGH 2017
WHEREAS, the City Council originally contracted with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD for
auditing services from 2010 through 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City has been extremely satisfied with the high quality work, integrity,
professionalism and industry knowledge in their work; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue with a contract with HLB Tautges
Redpath, LTC to continue auditing services for 2014 with options for extension through 2017;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
that a contract extension for auditing services with HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD is approved as
follows:
• 2014 auditing services are hereby approved.
• Single audit services for 2014 would also be conducted as required.
• City Council authorizes the City Manager to approve extensions of the auditing services
contract through the 2017 audit year, including single audit services as needed.
• Contract may be discontinued by either party with a 60 day notice.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amended Lease Agreement with Mn/DOT for Webster Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of a
Renewed Lease with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for
Webster Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue this lease with
Mn/DOT?
SUMMARY: For the last 42 years the City of St. Louis Park has operated and maintained a
public park facility, Webster Park, located on Webster Avenue and West 33rd Street. A portion of
this park area is property owned by the Mn/DOT.
The State continues to offer a no cost lease to the City in return for maintenance and upkeep of
the property. Mn/DOT drafted Amendment No. 7, a two-year lease that will expire on November
30, 2015. The City will be able to renew the lease at that time. This amendment is consistent
with the terms and conditions of previous lease agreements. The prior lease was for two years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for maintenance of this park are
already included in the Park and Recreation Department budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Amended Lease Agreement with Mn/DOT for Webster Park
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A RENEWED
LEASE WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, is the fee owner of a
vacant land parcel on the northwest quadrant of the junction of T.H. 7 and T. H. 100 within the
City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, under the terms and conditions of lease
agreements with the State of Minnesota, has operated and maintained a public park facility on
this site for several years; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota is offering to renew a lease with the City of St.
Louis Park which would allow the City to continue operation and maintenance of a public park
on this site through November 30, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has, in past years, allowed the City to maintain the
property in lieu of rent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that the
continued lease of this property for public park use is in the best interest of the citizens of St.
Louis Park, and that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said lease.
Reviewed for St. Louis Park: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donations to Westwood Hills Nature Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a
monetary donation from Esther Knops in the amount of $827.47, Paula Pendleton in the amount
of $50, and St. Louis Park Golden Kiwanis in the amount of $100 for Westwood Hills Nature
Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept these gifts with
restrictions on their use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Esther Knops graciously donated $827.47 to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The donation is
given with the restriction that it be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for a memorial bench
in memory of her husband Werner Knops.
Paula Pendleton graciously donated $50 to Westwood Hills Nature Center in memory of Richard
Stuck. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used for Westwood Hills Nature
Center Programs.
Golden Kiwanis graciously donated $100 to Westwood Hills Nature Center. The donation is
given with the restriction that it be used for Westwood Hills Nature Center Programs.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These donations will be used for a
memorial bench and programming at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donations to Westwood Hills Nature Center
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $827.47 FROM ESTHER KNOPS TO BE USED
AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER FOR A MEMORIAL BENCH IN
MEMORY OF WERNER KNOPS
AND
APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 FROM PAULA PENDLETON
TO BE USED FOR WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER PROGRAMS
AND
APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $100 FROM GOLDEN KIWANIS
TO BE USED FOR WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Esther Knops donated $827.47, Paula Pendleton donated $50, and St. Louis
Park Golden Kiwanis donated $100; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to Esther Knops, Paula Pendleton and St.
Louis Park Golden Kiwanis with the understanding that they must be used at Westwood Hills
Nature Center for a memorial bench in memory of Werner Knops and Nature Center programs.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2013
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on August 22, 2013, at St. Louis
Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota - Council Chambers.
Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Justin Kaufman,
Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Bloyer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2013
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of June 27, 2013. The
motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Sideyard Setback and Drive Lane Width
Location: 4701 Excelsior Boulevard
Applicant: Elion Acquisitions
Case No.: 13-30-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant
is proposing to redevelop the existing BP fuel station by removing the fuel station and
constructing a new three tenant retail building. Variances are requested to allow the new
building to be 5.0 feet from the property line along Excelsior Blvd. A 24 foot drive aisle
instead of the required 25 feet is requested to provide an additional one foot of green
space between the proposed parking lot and the south property line, which is adjacent to
single family residential properties.
Mr. Morrison spoke about the corner lot designation regarding front and side yard.
Mr. Morrison said the intent is to put the parking lot behind the building and keep the
building up front. That will help with traffic. The parking lot will be accessed in the
same spot as existing access along Natchez Ave. He said a fuel station with 8 fuel pumps
generates approximately 1300 trips per week day according to national averages. An
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
8,000 sq. ft. retail building generates about 340 trips per week day according to national
averages, not taking into account tenants and tenant change. He stated that if the parking
lot was in front with access to Natchez, the utility boxes would have to be moved at
considerable expense. The city requires 50 ft. setback for driveway entrances from the
intersection of any major street, so the drive aisle to the parking lot would not be
conducive to a parking lot located in this area. It cuts too much to the south.
Mr. Morrison said the 5 ft. setback allows the construction of 14 additional parking
spaces. If the building met the 15 ft. setback it would have to be shifted to the south
which would affect a row of parking. He discussed the creation of walkable streets on
Excelsior Blvd. with recent development and 5 ft. setbacks.
Mr. Morrison spoke about the neighborhood meeting which was held Aug. 20th. He
reviewed the concerns raised at the meeting. The biggest concern relates to the placement
of the building. Concerns related to placement of the building include parking lot noise,
truck deliveries, garbage pick-up and screening along the south property line. There were
concerns about additional traffic onto Natchez Ave. with one access to the property.
Traffic volume, parking in the neighborhood, and lighting were also raised as concerns.
Mr. Morrison explained that since the neighborhood meeting the applicant has revised
their drawings. Many of the neighborhood concerns have been incorporated into the plan.
The revision includes a right-in only access on Excelsior Blvd. In order to accommodate
this, the second and third tenant space has been reconfigured. The outdoor patio area was
eliminated. An 8 ft. masonry wall is proposed to be constructed along the south property
line, planted with vines, for a visual and sound barrier. Elevations of the building have
also changed slightly. The second story has been removed, with the architectural detail
maintained at the intersection of Excelsior and Natchez.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff recommends approval of the two variances. He reviewed
the findings of criteria for granting the variances.
Chair Bloyer opened the public hearing.
Dean Dovalis, DJR Architecture, said they chose to go through the variance process
because of overall urban design and the nature of the street. They thought it was
important to anchor the corner and create a future pedestrian environment as Excelsior
Blvd. enhances and improves over time. He stated that they gave up about 1,000 sq. ft. to
accomplish the new design.
Hillary Stewart, 4712 Vallacher Ave., said she bought her home in 2000 because there
are so many positive things about the community. She stated that the fuel station has
hardly any traffic so does not reflect the national traffic averages for this kind of use. She
distributed a photograph taken from her kitchen window which shows the feeder route
flow of traffic from the Minikahda Vista community which is constant flow of joggers;
moms, strollers, and small kids 20 ft in front of mom; woman in a wheelchair; and elderly
with canes. She said even with a second entrance on Exc. Blvd., there will be accidents
as pedestrians and bikers go to Starbucks or Wolfe Park. Ms. Stewart stated she is
concerned about truck traffic and noise with three separate property owners and doesn’t
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
believe the wall will be an effective sound barrier. She said she walks to Starbucks daily
and can attest to the current pedestrian traffic and existing traffic and street parking at
Natchez. She spoke about problems existing at Excelsior Blvd. and Natchez to get into
the right hand turn lane. Drivers often pull halfway into the crosswalk. Ms. Stewart said
she doubted that customers and employees will all park in the lot. The employees will
probably be encouraged to park on Vallacher. She spoke about trucks coming down
Natchez to make deliveries to Jennings Liquor. She said trucks do a 3-point turn to make
their deliveries. To avoid the 3-point turn they drive the big beer trucks down Vallacher
Ave. and into Natchez. She will lose trees, have increased noise, and decreased property
value. She is also concerned about kids in the neighborhood. She spoke about the
congestion that will occur with truck deliveries and garbage pick-up for the new
development and Jennings Liquor.
Ms. Stewart summarized by saying she understands change will happen but she is very
concerned about noise. She would propose the building is moved to the back of the
property. She suggested adding more green space, reduce the amount of tenants, and
reduce the amount of parking space. She said the revised plan is a start but it can be much
better.
Chair Bloyer asked Ms. Stewart what kind of use she was envisioning at the site.
Ms. Stewart responded she wouldn’t mind seeing one tenant or a bakery with normal
business hours, a law office, an office use with normal business hours hours, 1 to 2
stories. She added that she doesn’t have a problem with the building itself but the way it
is situated for her property and for all of Minikahda Vista.
Erica Gibbons, 4724 Vallacher Ave., said she is very concerned about the hours of fast
food or pizza delivery going beyond midnight. She spoke about the problem in the
parking lot of car doors slamming, horns beeping, employees taking breaks and talking
on their cellphones and smoking, and privacy for residents. Ms. Gibbons asked the
resident who lives behind Jennings Liquor about any noise problems. That resident told
her that the delivery trucks, plows, and garbage trucks had an inconsistent schedule and
were always very loud.
Ms. Gibbons said her overall concern is comparing the line of sight with Exc. & Grand
and Ellipse. The properties can’t be compared to the proposal on the south side. The
subject lot is more shallow and abuts directly to residential. She’s very concerned about
the differing visions that the City and the neighborhood have of the south side of
Excelsior Blvd. and the Minikahda Vista neighborhood. She asked if all parking will
move back on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. and create traffic flow concerns in and
around those buildings. She said there has not been enough vision and planning for this
entire site. The older properties will start selling in the next few years and she believes a
consistent vision is needed for each building that will be developed. The neighborhood is
not envisioning that all the buildings will now go to the front. Ms. Gibbons said she felt
there is a lack of communication between the neighborhood and the City. She said she is
asking for more transparency between the City, neighborhood and for the City to take
into consideration the concerns of the neighborhood now and in future planning.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
Betsy Baker, 3905 Kipling Ave. S., said her house is not particularly affected by the
development. She is very sympathetic to what the homeowners are feeling but said she
wants to speak in favor of the proposal. She said she was part of the neighborhood
association from about 1998 – 2004. She said she thinks having the building in front will
be much more appealing to look at long term. Especially if it becomes precedent setting,
she would not want a sea of asphalt parking lots down Excelsior Blvd. when there are the
beginnings of good things going on the north side of Excelsior Blvd. She said the
architect of the proposed development does have experience listening to the neighbors of
Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods with the Ellipse development. She
said she felt a lot of neighborhood concerns were addressed in the proposed development.
She stated that development is going to happen and if the current proposal was for an
expanded fuel station and convenience store it might not have been as appealing as the
current proposal. She commented that Natchez is the first street to the south of a major
thoroughfare. She said she thinks a safe and appealing site can be accomplished within
the parameters of the development.
Ernie Feil, 3914 Ottawa Ave. S., said the 8 ft. wall in the back to help with sound, lights
and noise is a good improvement to a 6 ft. fence, but it creates a hazard at the sidewalk.
Mr. Morrison indicated that the wall would not extend all the way to the sidewalk.
Mr. Feil commented that the zoning is commercial, but it is abutting residential and
certain businesses, like coffee roasting, cause significant problems with neighbors.
Other considerations have to be taken into consideration when commercial abuts
residential. He suggested the business should be open no later than 10 p.m. He said he
was concerned about noise of snow removal, deliveries, and traffic with a rear parking
lot. He said he was concerned about snow storage and snow being moved to the
residential area. He said he was concerned about the width of the driving lane and larger
vehicles. Mr. Feil requested a condition for significant tree replacement for light and
noise barrier. He spoke about concern of delivery vehicles. He noted that delivery
vehicles currently can’t navigate the Jennings parking lot and do park in the street and he
anticipated the same with the proposed development. He requested no loading zones on
Natchez.
Mr. Feil stated that change will come to the area, but said moving the building to the rear
may better serve the residential area and the community.
Chair Bloyer suggested residents meet with the Engineering Dept. staff about street
problems which are occurring.
Mr. Morrison added that he would present these concerns to the Engineering Dept.
Steve Kramer, 3924 Ottawa Ave. S., stated that the proposal seems to be an ideal
scenario compared to the expansion of a fuel station and convenience store that could
have been constructed. He asked how to insure that the developer will comply with the 8
ft. concrete wall as it has been described with stucco and ivy.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
Mr. Morrison responded compliance is insured by clarification in the conditions for the
variance. Later when building permit application is made to the Building Inspections
Dept., Mr. Morrison reviews the permit for all conditions along with other zoning
requirements. Certificate of Occupancy is not granted until everything is completed.
Mr. Kramer asked the Board if they thought an 8 ft. wall was adequate. He asked if it
should be 9 or 10 ft.
Mr. Kramer said that aesthetically the type of design and the precedent for that corner and
for Excelsior Blvd. could increase the value of the residential properties. He said he is
amazed at how Minikahda Vista property values have maintained themselves in recent
years. He commented that there is still much demand for people to move into the
neighborhood. He said he would like to see buildings abut the sidewalk on the north side
of Exc. Blvd. as well as the south side as long as noise and light can be mitigated for
residents.
Mr. Kramer spoke about a safety issue as pedestrians go down Natchez to go to Exc. &
Grand. Sidewalk along the east side of Natchez, along Jennings Liquor, down to
Vallacher would increase safety.
Mr. Kramer suggested a right on green only sign as a safety measure.
Jeremy Myrum, 4704 Vallacher Ave., said he just moved to Vallacher Ave. in April.
One of their favorite features was having their lot backed up against the trees behind the
fuel station. He said they appreciated not hearing anything and not having neighbors in
the back. They understood that the fuel station was not doing very well and that change
would come. He said they would not have purchased the home if they knew they would
have a parking lot in the backyard. They are concerned about safety issues for children
with increased traffic
Chair Bloyer noted she had looked at the fence which is currently a buffer and she was
horrified by its condition.
Jon Schaefer, 3913 Lynn Ave., said he has lived in St. Louis Park since 1965 and has
lived at 3913 Lynn with his family since 1968. He said the issues are safety, noise, light
and urban beauty. This is the first proposal on the south side of Excelsior Blvd. and it is
important. He added that St. Louis Park has always been kids first, neighborhoods, and
citizens. The issues need to be balanced with urban renewal and improvements. Mr.
Schaefer said all that was necessary was to put the building in the back and close off the
entrance from Natchez Ave., eliminating the safety issue. Noise would be reduced with
this buffer.
Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Ave., stated she is a 27 year resident, co-chair of
the neighborhood association, and also a City Planning Commissioner. She stated the
proposal has been a whirlwind for the neighborhood. The neighborhood heard a couple
of months ago that Steve Wolfe was going to sell the property. Rumors were circulating
about possible development. Ms. Johnston-Madison said she requested from city staff the
proposed plans when they became available. She said residents and neighbors suddenly
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
received a notice for the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. There have been a lot of
unanswered questions. She stated that staff did include a number of points from the
neighborhood meeting in the presentation.
Ms. Johnston-Madison reviewed the history of development along Excelsior Blvd. with
Excelsior & Grand. She discussed neighborhood involvement in discussions of various
proposals for the Al’s Bar site over the years. She discussed design guideline meetings
which were held prior to the new Ellipse development at that site. The design guidelines
for that site are part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Residents and business owners
involved in the design guideline process felt a similar process should be conducted for the
south side of Excelsior and never felt the south side was to mirror the north side of
Excelsior Blvd.
Ms. Johnston-Madison said it isn’t clear if the proposed building should be in the front or
back of the lot. She stated the best course of action seems to be to table the issue for more
discussion. The proposal will set the precedent for the south side of Excelsior. Blvd. A
vision for the south side is needed. She said consensus hasn’t been reached because of the
way this proposal was rushed. She suggested holding a couple more meetings with the
developer and residents as there are unanswered questions.
Rose Doherty, a 27-year-resident of 4968 W. 40th St., stated that she lives right behind
the Chill and Grill at Miracle Mile. She has a fence that goes up to the Miracle Mile
property. She stated that it is a regular occurrence for customers parked at the fence to eat
their food and leave garbage and liquor bottles in the yard. She spoke about noise from
deliveries, snow removal, and parking lot sweeping which regularly occurs after
midnight. She said the 6 ft. fence and trees in her yard help to obscure the view, but the
view is not obstructed from her porch. She commented that the south side of Excelsior
Blvd. is different from the north side. The north side was designed for density. She
suggested that a vision be created which can be followed for the south side. She
recommended tabling the request and come up with some alternatives.
Erica Gibbons, 4724 Vallacher Ave., distributed photographs of new construction at
Hwy. 7 & Hopkins Crossroad, stating that the building and site is very similar to the
proposal under discussion.
Ernie Feil, 3914 Ottawa Ave. S., stated if the proposal was deemed to have a negative
effect on residential property values, the City might be responsible for compensation to
residents.
Grant Worthen, 4620 Vallacher Ave., stated he has lived directly behind Jennings Liquor
Store for eight years. He spoke about issues of snow plows, liquor trucks, garbage, and
noise related to parking and traffic on the back side abutting his residential property. His
property is about 50-75 ft. from the fuel station property and he anticipates additional
noise if parking goes to the rear of the site. His preference is for the building to go to the
back. He was concerned about retail parking spaces, anticipated daily trips, and employee
parking. Mr. Worthen stated he doesn’t want cars parked on Vallacher Ave. He said that
situation can decrease property values. He said the variance proposal seems rushed,
would set a precedent, and he recommends more discussion.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 7
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
Sheldon Berg, applicant, spoke about the photographs provided of Hwy. 7 and Hopkins
Crossroad. He noted that he is the developer of that project in Hopkins. He said it is the
redevelopment of an industrial building and there were few choices in placement. He
stated that the character of the adjoining neighborhood and streets are much different
from the Excelsior Blvd. proposal.
Dean Dovolis, architect, said they are not in favor of tabling the request. He said the
debate has been very good. Over sixty people attended the neighborhood meeting. He
said they were willing to continue working with the neighborhood going forward. He
spoke about the construction timeline. Mr. Dovolis said they believe the variance is the
right thing to do for the long term vision of St. Louis Park.
Chair Bloyer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley stated he liked the plan and found it well thought out. He said it
has been given a very significant airing. He said there may be issues that need to be taken
up later, and he favors the variance request.
Commissioner Solmer said as originally presented he had some concerns with delivery
truck access and parking screening. He said the revised version does a good job addressing
those issues. He said all things considered it is a good plan for redevelopment of this site.
Commissioner Roberts asked what type of building could be built on the site without a
variance.
Mr. Morrison responded the C-1 district allows for a 3-story building. He discussed
setbacks. He said the biggest limiting factor is parking and the parcels are small.
Underground parking is cost prohibitive in most cases.
Commissioner Roberts said he liked the plan and would be open to tabling the request for
neighborhood input, but overall he said he supports the plan.
Commissioner Kaufman said he struggles with the request. The neighborhood has
concerns. The developer is responsible and trying to do the right thing. He said he
understands there may be enforcement issues which create a cumulative effect in the
neighborhood. Commissioner Kaufman said he could vote against the variance or vote to
table the request to insure that mitigation efforts that would be appropriate if the building
was at the front of the property could be addressed and be a condition of that variance.
Chair Bloyer said she wasn’t sure if tabling the request would be that helpful. She stated
that the developer has gone to great lengths in design and addressing concerns. She added
that there isn’t a perfect solution and there will be growing pains. She suggested adding
much more greenery for noise reduction.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 03-13 approving a
variance with the revised site plan to allow a 5.0 foot side yard abutting the street instead
of the required 15 feet, and a 24 foot drive aisle instead of the required 25 feet. The
motion was approved on vote of 4-1 (Kaufman opposed).
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4d) Page 8
Title: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes August 22, 2013
Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to City Council.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
A Board of Zoning Appeals meeting will be held on Thursday, September 26th.
8. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4H
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period
September 7 through September 27, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUMMARY: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s
review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
557.89FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
557.89
411.03PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLSA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
411.03WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
822.06
171.40NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABELSON, SHARON
171.40
922.52UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSABRA MN ST LOUIS PARK
922.52
66.04REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAMSON, BETSY & DAVID
66.04
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC
450.00
182.41GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESACE SUPPLY CO
182.41
1,175.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACZ LABORATORIES INC
1,175.00
49.57OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
49.57
2,500.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION
2,500.00
276.54SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
561.09PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
13,941.54-PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE
278,830.77CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
265,726.86
859.30UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
859.30
78.71POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
78.71
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 2
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
780.00PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAMERICAN TEST CENTER INC
780.00
936.97GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
936.97
1,287.41OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER
1,287.41
35.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESANTONEN, MATT
35.00
470.68REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
470.68
2,344.27GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
2,344.27
10.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSARBOR DAY FOUNDATION
10.00
10,194.83GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIART PARTNERS GROUP
10,194.83
702.98OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
702.98
4,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWASSET REALTY
4,500.00
125.01GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYASTLEFORD INTERNATIONAL
125.01
216.51CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENTAT&T MOBILITY
216.51
994.13FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION
994.13
250.00POLICE G & A TRAININGATOM
250.00
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 3
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
64.58PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEATOMIC RECYCLING
64.59SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
258.33VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
387.50
1,844.13WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,844.13
25.63BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH
25.63
80.23REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBAKER, LOOE
80.23
3,250.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBALLARD KING & ASSOCIATES LTD
3,250.00
2,885.50SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARR ENGINEERING CO
2,885.50
90.00WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEBARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO
150.00REFORESTATIONCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
240.00
62.53REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
62.53
68.21REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBENSON, JANET
68.21
440.22WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATBERTHIAUME, BRUCE
183.06WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
623.28
117.50OPERATIONSTRAININGBERUBE, BRIAN
117.50
264.98ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
264.98
18,291.98-CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEBLACK & DEW LLC
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 4
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
365,839.18MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
347,547.20
947.81REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLOOMINGTON, CITY OF
947.81
87.62GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYBLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC
87.62
13,879.50ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBOLTON & MENK INC
13,879.50
121.03POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
121.03
185.65GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
185.65
100.00IT G & A TRAININGBROOKLYN CENTER, CITY OF
100.00
4,945.12SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROWN, NATHAN
4,945.12
220.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEBRUESTLE, SHARON
220.00
47.47KICKBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESBSN SPORTS INC
47.47
117.50OPERATIONSTRAININGBUCKEL, KARI
117.50
275.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBURNSTEIN, LARRY
275.00
741.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSCALHOUN TOWERS APTS
741.00
42.32TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
42.32
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 5
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,633.34ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
160.00ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
32.00HOUSING REHAB G & A LEGAL SERVICES
384.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
896.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
12,105.34
1.25ORGANIZED REC G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGESCAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL
64.48BRICK HOUSE (1324)GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.86SUMMER GRADE 6-8 GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.59
2,490.18IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
2,490.18
4,975.38TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
4,975.38
490.00CES Resid Energy Conservation OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
490.00
791.67FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
1,536.19WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
24.14REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
32.14SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
120.43SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
1,024.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
315.92PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
20.19WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
36.34NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
3,901.02
219.37FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
6,277.84ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
6,497.21
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
4,876.18PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTRAL WOOD PRODUCTS
4,876.18
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 6
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
280.85CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONECENTURY LINK
280.85
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWCHRISTIANSEN, ANN
1,000.00
122.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS CORPORATION
274.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
872.02WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
340.50AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
444.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,052.92
80.20HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
369.85HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
279.91HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
654.08COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
3.50ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
209.00ASSESSING G & A LICENSES
41.15FINANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
350.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
47.54CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
434.10ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
2,800.00ADULT PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.82PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
160.50PLAYGROUNDSOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
195.50SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
14.56ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
566.27REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
88.00ARENA MAINTENANCE LICENSES
96.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS ADVERTISING
93.72AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
6,504.70
18,250.22-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGECLASSIC PROTECTIVE COATINGS IN
365,004.36CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
346,754.14
641.40CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
641.40
16,941.12ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 7
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16,941.12
170.61IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
171.12WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
82.41SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11.36BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
435.50
1,035.35SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
1,035.35
479.65CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
479.65
1,797.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND
1,797.00
8,962.75GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES
8,962.75
1,253.44DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
1,253.44
16.49SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
16.49
191.43POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
191.43
1,276.04SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECUES INC
1,276.04
11,880.29MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICUMMINS NPOWER LLC
11,880.29
4.25-SSD 1 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCURBSIDE LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATIO
647.09SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
642.84
484.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
484.50
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 8
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,698.63SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
1,209.83SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
440.86SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
687.74SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
529.03SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,566.09
163.22REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL GENERAL SUPPLIESDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
1,482.87REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,646.09
4,000.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDAY GROUP LLC
4,000.00
36.73GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEDEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC
36.73
1,660.69GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYDEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
1,660.69
7,158.15INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
7,158.15
262.48ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
262.48
16.12GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYDIESEL COMPONENTS
16.12
453.80POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATDILORENZO, KIRK
453.80
28.19ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDISCOUNT STEEL INC
28.19
2,026.06PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
26,013.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,402.62PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,500.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,532.49ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
33,474.17
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 9
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
708.47POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
7,031.13SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE
7,739.60
207.85ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESECM PUBLISHERS INC
207.85
82.98REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEDWARDS, MARTI
82.98
3,411.03SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
3,411.03
339.49NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELIOT VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
339.49
4,977.98GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
4,977.98
9,452.06GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
9,452.06
239.54OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC
239.54
450.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGEMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
450.00
37,400.23TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTESRI
37,400.23
66.15REC CENTER BUILDING MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAREVERS, ROBERT
66.15
5.23-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSEVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS
81.23POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
76.00
434.17GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
434.17
156.05REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFASHINGBAUER, CLAUDIA
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 10
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
156.05
37.96REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
37.96
98.30POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
98.30
239.06ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
239.06
4,263.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFIRE CATT LLC
4,263.00
2,436.58WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFISCHER MINING LLC
2,436.58
403.45EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFLEX COMPENSATION INC
403.45
104.50WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
53.44REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
157.94
2,572.02GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEFORKLIFTS OF MN INC.
2,572.02
2,450.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWFOURNIER, JAMES
2,450.00
10,000.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIENDS OF THE ARTS
10,000.00
245.13PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
304.29ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
549.42
8,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWGILLES & JACQUELINE NATH, ANDR
8,000.00
3,914.88EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
3,914.88
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 11
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
90.08REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGOLDFARB, STEVEN
90.08
206.63GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYGOODIN COMPANY
206.63
1,211.05WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
1,211.05
60.00ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEGPRS
60.00
251.49WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSGRAINGER INC, WW
251.49
1,006.42WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
390.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
1,396.42
692.52WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGREEN HORIZONS
692.52
3,455.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
3,455.00
450.24EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCEGROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE
450.24
53.44-BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHAAG COMPANIES INC
224.28PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
170.84
816.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
816.00
109.02WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHARMON ESTATE, JOHN
109.02
10,327.04WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
352.15BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
10,679.19
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 12
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,086.92PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
1,086.92
330.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHEDBERG AGGREGATES
330.40
198.27WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHEITKAMP, ERWIN
198.27
140.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS AS
140.00
2,273.70POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
899.53OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,429.23
2,568.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER
2,568.00
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
3,643.92POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
287.39PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
4,465.69
1,730.10OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1,730.10
2,662.22GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHERHENRICKSEN PSG
1,807.45MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER
4,469.67
512.40-EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSHISLOP, DANIEL
1,125.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
612.60
2,452.50PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
2,452.50
4,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHOLMES, MIKE
4,000.00
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 13
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
510.22GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
21.25ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
61.71ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
44.86ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
20.16DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
10.66RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
49.83INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
35.38PAINTINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
191.89WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
9.05IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.57PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.11TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
60.83BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
17.50REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,086.02
139.55ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
139.55
228.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
228.50
212.50VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JENNIFER
212.50
400.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
400.00
151.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
151.50
47.20YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHUNTLEY, DAVID
47.20
56.32REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHURD & WILLIAM SPECE, JUDITH
56.32
1,665.30EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,665.30
286.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTI/O SOLUTIONS INC
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 14
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
286.00
25.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESICE SKATING INST AMERICA
25.00
475.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIFP TEST SERVICES
475.00
525.91WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEIMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
525.91SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
525.90SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
525.90STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,103.62
577.12PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
577.12
2,476.45IT G & A TELEPHONEINTEGRA TELECOM
2,476.45
334.03GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
119.99GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
454.02
379.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIPMA-HR
379.00
115,546.04GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
115,546.04
273.42ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTJ & F REDDY RENTS
55.14PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
328.56
234.06OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
234.06
371.44POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESJENALEX COMPANY
371.44
24.03ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSJERRY'S HARDWARE
25.52WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 15
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
32.57PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
82.12
3,300.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJOE'S SEWER SERVICE INC
3,300.00
8.98IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
8.98
7,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWJOHNSON, ETHAN
7,000.00
50.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SUSAN
100.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00
310.00INSPECTIONS G & A ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONSJON'S AUTO REPAIR
310.00
39.95INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSJOURNAL OF LIGHT CONSTRUCTION
39.95
79.36REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKALLEVIG, AUSTIN
79.36
867.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHERKAY PARK-REC CORP
867.00
528.46EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
528.46
75.00ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN
75.00
36.23TENNISOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKLAERS, SHANNON
36.23
3,650.00CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKLM ENGINEERING INC.
3,650.00
82.98REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRAUSE, DOUGLAS & NANCY
82.98
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 16
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,535.88UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
4,535.88
1,382.77ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESKRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC
1,382.77
1,048.09BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESKRUGE-AIR INC
1,048.09
56.19FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
56.19
2,295.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,295.00
102.73GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
102.73
25,614.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
25,614.00
5,030.33UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
5,030.33
172.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICELIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING LLC
172.50
77.22WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESLINDOR, CJ
77.22
41,062.00IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
20,966.40TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
62,028.40
2,908.47HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONLOOKOUT BAR & GRILL
2,908.47
95.29REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLORENTZ, SCOTT & JODI
95.29
150.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLUCAS, ERIC
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 17
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
150.00
626.15ATHLETIC CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLYNCH CAMPS, INC
626.15
1,387.00IT G & A TRAININGLYNDA.COM INC
1,387.00
22,268.05-SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEMAGNEY CONSTRUCTION INC
445,361.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
423,092.95
172.80ATHLETIC CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL
172.80
149.63SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE
149.63
50.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALMARSH HEATING & AIR CONDITIONI
50.00
113,072.49-STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEMCCROSSAN INC, C S
2,261,449.89CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,148,377.40
68.79REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCQUILLAN, BARB
68.79
79.27WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
148.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
51.29IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.02WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.11HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
349.25
113.57PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
113.57
96,183.45INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
316,652.43OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
412,835.88
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 18
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
861.16HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
861.16
2,800.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
2,800.50
68,913.00INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMILLERBERND MFG CO
68,913.00
553.50PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
553.50
512.40EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
512.40
100.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA NATURALISTS ASSOC
930.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
1,030.00
460.00OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS
460.00
17.38WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTMINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS
17.38
305.66SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
305.66
30.00WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN AWWA
30.00
195.00PATCHING-PERMANENT SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO
195.00
8,000.00HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOBIUS INC
8,000.00
1,635.12COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMOTOROLA
1,635.12
105.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAININGMPSTMA
105.00
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 19
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,824.01FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESM-R SIGN CO INC
1,824.01
750.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTMRA-THE MANAGEMENT ASSOC
750.00
2,347.21GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
2,347.21
749.50GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
18.21WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
98.28PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
18.15REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
348.47GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
146.45GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,379.06
384.75BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNATIVE PLANT NURSERY INC
384.75
800.86GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICENATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO
800.86
3,081.21SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNEENAH FOUNDREY
3,081.21
55,830.43GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYNELSON AUTO CENTER
55,830.43
225.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEWHALL, JACOB
225.00
6,427.00CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENTNEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
6,427.00
80.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTNOVAK, WALLACE
80.00
159.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNRPA
159.00
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 20
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
572.63POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
572.63
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWOAKWOOD PARTNERS
1,000.00
23.24ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
52.07ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
367.87HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
102.35HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
30.64POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
153.08OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
109.92ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
839.17
1,508.37INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,508.37
817.36GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
79.83SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
897.19
82.79HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAININGOLSON, MARNEY
84.75HOUSING REHAB G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
167.54
35.28-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSOMAHA PAPER COMPANY INC
419.28PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
384.00
3,750.96PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
267.20OPENOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
104.74OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
138.94WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,261.84
71.06GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYO'REILLY AUTO PARTS
71.06
1,017.71PLAYGROUNDSOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARK TAVERN
1,017.71
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 21
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
681.25PLAYGROUNDSOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAYNE, DOUGLAS
681.25
4,068.80REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
478.10REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,546.90
8.57GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYPETTY CASH
1.26ASSESSING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.00POLICE G & A LICENSES
27.45PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
19.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LICENSES
14.77WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
5.89SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
32.16SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
41.16SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
47.27VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
252.47
3,110.72PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
3,110.72
3,660.72GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
3,660.72
363.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP.COM INC
363.08
389.88STORM CLEAN UP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESPOWERPLAN OIB
389.88
19.64-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
34.45-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
777.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
138.94INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
305.32INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,167.47
11,088.61TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
11,088.61
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 22
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
126.00ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
126.00
690.00DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRISM EXPRESS MANAGER
690.00
145.35VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESPUMP & METER SERVICE
145.35
6,030.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
1,671.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,702.00
73.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
73.71
2,072.31UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSR & R SPECIALTIES
1,346.63ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
3,418.94
375.46TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESRAINBOW TREECARE
375.46
89.38-SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRECYCLING ASSOC OF MN
1,389.38SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
1,300.00
5,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICREDDY INVESTMENTS LLC
5,000.00
141.83POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
23.49POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
165.32
222.24PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESRIGID HITCH INC
222.24
956.53WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC
956.53
180.00PARK PAVILIONS RENT REVENUEROBERTSON, JOHN
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 23
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
180.00
87.33REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESROY, RYAN
87.33
216.97VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
216.97
223.88PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISAM'S CLUB
251.19PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
165.64PARK MAINTENANCE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
176.74WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
5,546.58CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
6,364.03
47.01INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIESSANDUM, KATHERINE
170.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
217.01
610.98ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
610.98
3,052.18SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
3,052.18
155.37ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
155.37
57,030.18PE DESIGN GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
2,138.20SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
59,168.38
80.00SUNSET RIDGE TRAININGSENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION
80.00
48.80ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS
20.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
100.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.00PARK AND REC G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
198.80
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 24
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4.74-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSIGN PRODUCERS INC
115.42GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
110.68
473.01REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
473.01
1,458.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993
1,458.60
1,399.92IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONSSPRINT
1,399.92
5,760.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTSQUARERIGGER SOFTWARE
5,760.00
3,042.73MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIST CROIX REC CO
106.88AQUATIC PARK BUDGET EQUIPMENT PARTS
3,149.61
15,804.87TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC
15,804.87
642.30NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCESTATE FARM INSURANCE
642.30
790.88GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYSTEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC
790.88
2,903.80GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
2,903.80
832.56WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSSTRAND MFG CO
832.56
2,372.09POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
69.99OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
164.57SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
2,606.65
111.31ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSTROTH, NANCY
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 25
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
111.31
1,264.22GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
1,264.22
20,520.64PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
4,200.00PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
11,459.58REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
36,180.22
250.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION
250.00
9.76-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUMMIT SUPPLY CORP OF COLORADO
151.76PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
142.00
149.39ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
149.39
.62-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSUNDBERG CO, CE
9.69GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.07
89.07REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWENSON JR, GEORGE
89.07
3,600.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSYED, IMRAN ALI
3,600.00
36.12ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
36.12
2,992.36PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTEMPLE DISPLAY LTD
2,992.36
208.12BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
208.12
22.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEXA TONKA TAILORING
22.00
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 26
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,968.48EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
2,968.48
477.37-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGETHOMAS & SONS CONST INC
9,547.41ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
47.93-PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE
958.63CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
41.00-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
820.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,759.74
132.30POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT C
132.30
1,054.56ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
1,054.56
3,945.86GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYTITAN MACHINERY
3,945.86
4,253.43PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
4,253.43
575.31GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYTOWMASTER
575.31
10,045.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
10,045.00
850.79GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETRANSMISSION SHOP INC
850.79
1,870.31TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREE TRUST
202.38WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,500.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,572.69
19.13GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
19.13
23.13GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYTRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
23.13
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 27
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
164.80PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTURFWERKS
164.80
680.17PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITWIN CITY HARDWARE
680.17
750.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY WINDOW REPLACEMENT C
750.00
13,812.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTUHL CO INC
13,812.00
803.44SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
2,248.03SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,033.49PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,501.61COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
7,586.57
150.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSUNITED STATES TREASURY
150.00
204.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
204.00
60.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
60.00
34.59WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUPS STORE
61.31VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
95.90
2,750.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUSAQUATICS
2,750.00
207.90HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
207.90
3,200.28WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
3,200.28
161.03ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 28
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
161.03
74.16COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
74.16
242.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
242.24WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
484.55
44.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSVOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS' BENEFI
44.00
545.45GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYWALSER CHRYSLER JEEP
545.45
500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWALSH, MARK
500.00
974.45SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
5,311.45SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS
63,146.40SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
26,079.72SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
33,728.61SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
10,610.22SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
139,850.85
273.52WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
273.52
2,596.40CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
2,596.40
59.63VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESWAYTEK
59.63
1,375.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
1,375.00
20.00POLICE G & A LICENSESWEIGEL, GREG
20.00
64.45REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOODWARD, JOHN
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 29
10/2/2013CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:57:38R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
9/27/2013 -9/7/2013
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
64.45
4,190.00COUNTS AND STUDIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWSB ASSOC INC
4,190.00
18,110.99GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
24.87OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
26,958.89PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
41,080.57WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,636.98REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,040.05SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,860.63STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
6,823.46PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
24.43BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
95.04WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
715.46WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
25,393.44ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
127,764.81
36,214.73GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
36,214.73
337.48ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESZACKS INC
337.48
15,615.44GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEZIEGLER INC
15,615.44
458.92ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
458.92
Report Totals 5,326,153.93
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4i)
Title: Vendor Claims Page 30
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
May 15, 2013, 6:30 p.m. Meeting
Rec Center Programming Office
1. Call to Order
Mr. Hagemann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members present: Jim Beneke, George Foulkes,
Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann Kirk Hawkinson and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: Sophia Flumerfelt.
Staff present: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation, and Stacy Voelker,
Recording Secretary.
2. Presentation: Soccer Association (Bob Decker, President)
Bob Decker, Soccer Association President, along with the Commission, provided introductions.
Mr. Decker thanked them for the invitation.
Mr. Decker advised there were 420 kids’ ages 9 to 18 registered for traveling soccer and 220
kids’ ages 5 to 8 enrolled in the in-house soccer league. The Association is looking forward to
having lights on the fields as it will help other fields rest, indicated Mr. Decker. The Association
provided approximately 30 scholarships this year which is less than past years. No one is
declined registration. Ten percent of registered kids live outside of St. Louis Park. The Hopkins
soccer program folded so some kids from Hopkins are registered in St. Louis Park. Hopkins
registration numbers were lowering so Minnetonka took over the soccer association. Minnetonka
is using Hopkins fields.
The association will host the district tournament at the end of July. The tournament is for 14 year
olds and will be played at Louisiana Oaks, as in the past two years. The tournament is a good
source of income for the association, Mr. Decker indicated.
Mr. Decker advised the cost for the in-house program is $100; the fall program is $70; and the
traveling program costs $350 to $400. The traveling league retains paid coaches and is the least
expensive in the west metro area. The Association works hard to maintain low fees, said Mr.
Decker. The Minnetonka league is much larger (similar in size to Golden Valley) and they take
up to 18 players per team. The younger kids have less on a team to equate with the policy of
equal play for younger ages. The Junior High age is a more competitive league.
The association, Mr. Decker indicated, would like to use the stadium field but was unable to use
it this spring. Soccer, lacrosse and possibly baseball all compete for field use. The association is
attempting to acquire the use of a field for one night during the week but is struggling to receive
communication from Community Education. The association has also encountered issues of gym
space rental through Community Education. Their off-season interest in utilizing a facility for
building skills over the winter has increased but has been bumped from gym space and not
notified Mr. Decker commented.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes May 15, 2013
Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the Soccer Association recruits at the Spanish Immersion and home
schooled children. Mr. Decker indicates the association sends flyers to all schools. They do not
have a good list for homeschool kids.
Mr. Worthington inquired if there is anything Parks and Recreation can do for the Association.
Mr. Decker recommended a covered field and more fields.
Mr. Worthington advised the Commission that Mr. Decker has been part of soccer for 25 years
and it has been very competitive. Ms. Foulkes complimented the Association on the free play
event they held.
Members thanked Mr. Decker for his attendance and overview and Mr. Decker thanked
Commission.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. April 17, 2012
It was moved by Commission member Worthington to approve the minutes; S. Foulkes
seconded. Motion passed 7 – 0.
4. New Business
a. Trail and Sidewalk Plan / Highway 100 Plan (Scott Brink)
Scott Brink, City Engineer, along with the Commission, provided introductions. Mr.
Brink thanked them for the invitation.
Mr. Brink explained the Connect the Park trail and sidewalk plan evolved from the 2006
visioning process. It is going into the second generation of a trail and sidewalk plan. A
good portion of the plan centers on specific criteria such as schools, public gathering
places, etc. The trail and sidewalk plan was adopted into the comprehensive plan a couple
years ago, indicated Mr. Brink. Throughout the public process, Mr. Brink has been
engaged and notes many people are supportive. The negative reactions come from
individuals who live where a sidewalk is proposed to be built in front of their house. Last
fall the City Council reviewed and revised the plan to include an on road bikeway system.
After reviewing the 10-year plan, they are currently finishing another round of public
input since changes were made to the plan, Mr. Brink advised. The topic will be
presented to Council on May 28. Mr. Brink advised the City hopes to adopt and begin
working on the new plan in June. The Council is realistic when reviewing the plan. They
look into the future and weight that against the cost and feedback.
Commission members viewed Exhibit A, Sidewalk CIP by Year and Mr. Brink explained
which sidewalks were removed from the plan due to public resistance and inadequate
logistics. Some feedback was received where sidewalks were not planned and residents
want them. Once through Council, will go back to where requests were to see if they can
add sidewalks.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes May 15, 2013
The Commission viewed Exhibit B1 Trail CIP by Year and discussed off-road trails.
Members and staff discussed how a trail could be added next to Highway 100 to connect
the two regional trails when MNDot’s Highway 100 project is complete.
Exhibit C2 Bikeways CIP by Year was viewed and discussed. The only controversy may
be where parking is allowed as it could get challenging to squeeze in a bike trail.
Mr. Hawkinson commented that the signals added by Highway 7 are hard to see on the
ramp. Mr. Brink indicated he will review and research options for adding safety. Highway
7 and Wooddale is a challenging area.
Members thanked Mr. Brink for his attendance and overview and Mr. Brink thanked
Commission.
5. Old Business
a. Community Center Process (Cindy Walsh)
Ms. Walsh advised the Commission that Council was updated last Monday on the
Community Center process. Staff is working with HGA to figure out what space and back
of house area is needed for the programming components. With the program components
defined, the consultant will work on the site plans including how the building will fit on
the site. Partnerships (i.e. including office space for Friends of the Arts, CVB, Park
Nicollet physical therapist, etc.) were discussed and Council agreed. Council would like
community partners or things that will enhance the Center plus many types of facilities
available. Mr. Hagemann indicated he would like FoTA to be on the list.
Ms. Walsh reviewed various areas proposed which are multi-purpose areas. These areas
would have multi-purpose flooring to accommodate various activities.
Program components were reviewed with the commission and include aquatics (lap
swimming, deep water area, diving board, climbing wall, and ADA access ramp) to allow
for specialized programming. This component could have different water temperatures,
leisure area with zero depth entry plus deep water activities. Drop in childcare, kids play
area and party rooms which are near the pool area to facilitate birthday parties were
discussed. Fitness areas discussed include a track, at least 10’ wide, would be included
and initially planned to go around the gym ; three other areas which include free weights,
have adequate storage and the ability to change with what’s popular. The community
room would be larger than the current Rec Center Banquet Room and be multi-purpose to
acquire the interest of various age groups. The commons area will be a gathering area that
is an inviting area for all ages.
Ms. Walsh indicated that HGA has built a number of community centers so are aware of
what is needed and what to include. Council provided most feedback on community
space and is very pleased with progress. The next step will be site analysis. Carpenter
Park is no longer a potential site. The two sites remaining for consideration are the area
on West 36th Street and Highway 100 (VFW building which is for sale) and the Rec
Center area. HGA will provide specifications needed.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes May 15, 2013
Mr. Beneke asked how residents would pay to visit the community center. Ms. Walsh
indicated staff would like multiple options for membership for people. Membership
options may include one month, three months, or an annual membership.
Mr. Beneke inquired on league teams and noted other members indicated a preference for
pick-up games and open gym. Ms. Walsh advised drop-in space at schools is minimal.
Ms. Griffin inquired on the timeline for the project to which Ms. Walsh advised staff will
report to Council the end of July with recommendations. Council and staff will discuss
through the fall and winter and determine if they would like to pursue a new community
center. Ms. Walsh advised staff will have potential site plans in August or September.
They will continue to review the process with the Commission.
b. Minnehaha Creek Clean Up Recap
Ms. Walsh reviewed the recap of the Creek clean-up with members. Members discussed
certain areas of the Creek that appear to collect more rubbish. Mr. Foulkes feels there
should be a plan in place for next year on how to deal with the homeless in that area. Ms.
Walsh advised she will work with the police department. Members discussed unique
items found and noted a lot of garbage was found by the car wash. It was recommended
to acquire a volunteer crew from Mr. Car Wash to assist in cleaning around their facility.
Commission members complimented city staff and the Lacrosse volunteers for this
successful event. Mr. Hawkinson suggested reaching out to scout groups to volunteer as
this was the first year there could have been more volunteers. Ms. Foulkes will reach out
to the boy’s lacrosse team to volunteer next year.
c. Dakota Park Scoreboard Dedication
Ms. Walsh advised the Dakota Park Scoreboard dedication is potentially set for after the
game on May 22, which is the last home baseball game. Ms. Griffin will confirm the time
and advise members. Ms. Walsh thanked Ms. Griffin for her assistance.
6. Staff Reports
Ms. Walsh advised planning with the Visual Quality Team (neighborhood representatives from
the area run by MnDOT) for Highway 100 is moving along. Neighbors voted on nice looking
sound walls north by Minnetonka Boulevard, but not by BSM. The city asked to incorporate art
into the railing along Minnetonka Boulevard to increase visual elements. The city is also encouraging
nice planting next to Webster Park along Highway 100. Construction will begin in 2014.
The Aquila 5 softball field will be lite this year, indicated Ms. Walsh. The City pays for lights as
need for programming. Lighting will be added to the back/northwest field at Louisiana Oaks Park
also this year. The Soccer Association has community funds to assist in financing.
Ms. Walsh indicated there have been conversations around increasing the size of the north
parking lot in Louisiana Oaks Park. Although there are plenty of parking spaces between the
north and south lots, users want closer parking. Staff will discuss with Council about the
potential to make the north lot larger and will keep the Commission apprised.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes May 15, 2013
Mr. Beneke congratulated Ms. Walsh on her promotion. Ms. Walsh thanked Mr. Beneke.
All Council seats are up for election this year, indicated Ms. Walsh. Council filing is open.
Ms. Walsh advised 36 Park is close to inhabiting. Mr. Hagemann advised the developer agreed to
use the artist, 11th Hour Heroics, LLC, for the artwork outside as they are creating the internal art.
The artist will make a pattern of tree leaves strewn along the concrete wall; similar to the internal art.
The West End apartments are currently being rented, indicated Ms. Walsh. The Ellipse has a new
addition currently being constructed which will be apartments/condos.
It is challenging to get a quorum for the June and July Commission meetings, Ms. Walsh
indicated. Members discussed and decided will not have meetings in June and July. The next
meeting will be August 21.
7. Other / Future Agenda Items
a. Member Comments
Mr. Hawkinson commented that the Soccer Association and Friends of the Arts
complained about Community Education regarding reservations and space confirmations
and wondered what could be done. Ms. Walsh advised the issues with turf field
complaints are due to the increase in use. Ms. Griffin feels there is a greater need than
available for gym space/field space which leads to issues. Mr. Hagemann commented that
communication is a big challenge. Ms. Foulkes suggested all communities encountered
the same issues this year with the late summer weather.
Mr. Hagemann advised the neighborhood around Flag and 18th are using that area as a
park even though not an official park. The residents would like facilities included in that
area and maintenance as in other parks. Mr. Hagemann advised they would like a grill
and the area mowed more than monthly. Ms. Walsh advised Council is not interested in
adding maintenance areas. There are some parcels scattered around the City that are being
used as park areas but not an official park. There isn’t much the City can do with the
topography and set-back of the pond. The residents can do something but the City isn’t
interested.
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member G. Foulkes to adjourn at 8:18 p.m.; Worthington
seconded. The motion passed 7 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 21, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Charlie Dixon (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Larry Shapiro
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Kelley, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of July 17, 2013 and August 7, 2013
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of July 17, 2013 and August 7,
2013. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 3-1 (Carper abstained; Person arrived 6:02 p.m.)
3. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for TCF Bank-Knollwood, In-vehicle Sales and Service
Location: 8951 36th St. W.
Applicant: TCF Bank - CO Acquisition Property II, LLC
Case No.: 13-24-CUP
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The proposed redevelopment
includes demolition of the existing building and parking areas. TCF proposes a new 1-
story, 2,813 square foot building on the eastern portion of the site with a drive-thru on the
west side of the building.
Commissioner Carper noted that the former owner had proposed development on the site
which was met with objections by the neighborhood due to the parking lot. He asked if
TCF has met with neighbors about the proposal and if there have been any objections.
Mr. Kelley said a neighborhood meeting has not been held. He said staff approached the
neighborhood leaders, especially before National Night Out, to spread the word to the
two affected neighborhoods. Required notification for conditional use permits was also
made. No objections have been received. The owner of the apartment north of the
property across 36th St. did look at the plans and stated he was happy with the proposal.
Commissioner Morris wanted to make sure that the pedestrian crossing through the traffic
island was ADA compliant, and to have that indicated on the final plans.
Mr. Kelley responded that will be noted in the detailed plans.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the
Chair closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 21, 2013
Commissioner Person asked if there has been any interest in the other half of the parcel.
Mr. Kelley responded that staff does not know of any interest shown in the other half of
the parcel.
Chair Robertson spoke about the car stacking proposed. He said depending on the
landscaping, he could see a driver coming around the curve and not being aware they are
in a stacking lane.
Mike Kraft, HTG Architects, said the rendering of the stacking is ambitious and they
have no expectation that stacking will reach the capacity of 12 vehicles. It is shown to
meet the requirements of the zoning code. He added that there is adequate space planned
for vehicles to drive around stacked vehicles.
Commissioner Morris asked about timing of the construction.
Mr. Kraft said the applicant doesn’t know the timing of construction at this point.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about the existing TCF location.
Mr. Kraft said it is a leased property and is not owned by TCF.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Person seconded the
motion and it passed on a vote of 5-0.
B. Knollwood Mall - PUD Major Amendment
Location: 8332 Highway 7
Applicant: Rouse Properties
Case No.: 13-28-PUD
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The request
for a major amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development is to reconstruct a
portion of the mall, construct a new free standing commercial building, reconstruct a
section of the parking lot, and stormwater improvements.
Mr. Morrison spoke about stormwater requirements. He said there is a condition in the
existing PUD approval that requires that stormwater be brought up to code for the site
with future improvements affecting parking lot and construction. The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) has proposed an opportunity to expand on Knollwood’s
stormwater obligations to convert it from a stormwater area that treats Knollwood
ponding, but also becomes more of a regional facility. Mr. Morrison said while that is
being pursued staff has asked the applicant to put together a fallback position. If the off-
site solution does not work, the city would need to see something that works on-site. The
fallback position would be approved as part of the current proposal. He reviewed two
proposed phases.
Chair Robertson noted that the Commission has had an opportunity to discuss the
proposal at a study session.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 21, 2013
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked for clarification about new docking stations. She
also asked about trees which will be removed for sidewalk on 36th St. She asked that
neighborhood leaders be notified about that tree removal.
Mr. Morrison spoke about the descending grade change at 36th Street. He added that section
of sidewalk has been a point of discussion in the Sidewalk and Trail Plan for over a year.
Commissioner Morris asked if snow is removed or stored on site.
Mr. Morrison responded it is both removed and stored on site. He said there will still be
room for on-site storage with the new construction.
Commissioner Morris commented that 36th St. is a one lane street that is extraordinarily
wide. He asked if the sidewalk could be widened by two feet.
Mr. Morrison said staff could discuss that with the Engineering Dept.
Commissioner Carper asked if there were discussions about increasing permeable surface
and LED lighting.
Mr. Morrison stated that the proposal decreases the impervious surface, primarily with
the landscaped islands. He said discussion about LED lighting has not occurred. He said
if an applicant can’t manage the landscaping on site there may be conversations about
lighting. He added if a property is subject to TIF or other municipal funds the city will
have some lighting requirements.
Commissioner Carper asked about transit from the proposed Blake Rd. LRT station to the mall.
Mr. Morrison said pedestrian connections from Hwy. 7 to Knollwood will be improved.
He said there have been conversations about circular shuttle routes.
Kevin Connell, Rouse Properties, applicant, discussed the proposal.
Commissioner Carper presented personal recommendations to the applicant. These
included monuments or kiosks adjacent to the sidewalks with the ability for changeable
community displays; sculptural elements on plazas in addition to the primary public
sculpture; LED lighting; food trucks; and shuttle transport to/from the Blake Rd. LRT station.
Commissioner Person asked about the City’s public art requirements for a site this size.
Mr. Morrison said the requirement is broader than art and includes landscaping, plazas,
and pedestrian walkways. Art is considered a physical improvement that occurs within
those areas. There isn’t a requirement for a certain value or certain number of pieces of
art. The city asked for an art element to cap the physical improvements and the applicant
has obliged.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Daniel O’Bresky, Subway Restaurant, 8127 Hwy. 7. Knollwood Mall, stated that he is
very excited about the project as the mall has needed some attention for awhile. He said
he is glad to see the changes to the drive-thru on Panera. He said he is concerned about
traffic lanes as the plaza and pedestrian areas will not be as easy to maneuver. He said
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 4g) Page 4
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 21, 2013
getting from one side of the mall to the other side will be far more challenging. Mr.
O’Bresky said he operates 18 restaurants in the Twin Cities and has a lot of experience
with being a tenant in large projects. He suggested that smoothing out the traffic lanes
will allow a better flow. He said the proposed turns and twists throughout the plan will
lead to more accidents and pedestrian issues. He asked the developer to pay attention to
that as plans move forward.
Mr. O’Bresky stated that food trucks are a serious problem for the two downtown
restaurants he operates. He said as St. Louis Park moves forward with addressing food
trucks it needs to understand what is happening to restaurants. He said he has lost 10%
volume to food trucks in downtown Minneapolis. He added that in his area of operations
5% of the restaurants have closed due to food trucks. Mr. O’Bresky spoke about the noise
of food truck compressors, propane gas, and idling of trucks. He commented that food
trucks aren’t paying property taxes. He spoke about sales tax and income tax reporting of
food trucks.
Commissioner Person spoke about traffic flow discussions which were held at the study
session. He said the Commission was told that the future configuration would improve
traffic flow throughout the mall.
Chair Robertson stated that the flow is good up and through the site but traveling from
Target to Cub it does not look smooth, so it is something to consider.
Commissioner Morris said he recalled the Commission asking about the next stage east.
The developer would look at the east configuration for smoothing out the parking as step two.
The Chair closed the public hearing as there was no one else present wishing to speak.
Chair Robertson said the comments on circulation were good and there would be
opportunity for tweaking plans. He stated that the proposal should move forward.
Commissioner Carper said the project looks excellent. He said he appreciated the study
sessions on the proposal.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment
to the Knollwood Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to conditions
recommended by staff. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 5-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
A. September 4th meeting moved to September 11th
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance adopting fees for 2014 and set Second Reading for October 21, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee
schedule to reflect fee adjustments for programs and services called for by ordinance?
SUMMARY: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of
our budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other
fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison
to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and to make sure our business costs are
covered for such service.
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees
must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has
worked with individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are
included in the attached ordinance.
A public hearing notice was published September 19, 2013 informing interested persons of the
city’s intent to consider fees. Fees, rates and charges called for by resolution or set by a
department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule.
Next steps:
The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 21, 2013. If approved, the fee
increases will be effective January 1, 2014.
Staff will be presenting proposed 2014 liquor fees for approval by resolution at the November
18, 2013 City Council Meeting. Utility fees for 2014 water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste
rates are scheduled for approval later this year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee increases have been
incorporated into the proposed 2014 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Proposed Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Each Department Director has reviewed fees listed in Appendix A of the City
Code. The Administrative Services, Fire, Police, Engineering, and Operations & Recreation
Departments are recommending no increases in Appendix A fees for 2014. The Inspections and
Community Development Departments have each proposed fee increases, additions, or removals
that are the shown in Appendix A (attached). Unless otherwise noted, proposed fee increases
reflect the increased administrative costs of providing services and were comparable to other
cities.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Assessing Department
Deed recording transfer fees are a County function, therefore this section was removed.
Community Development Department
A new zoning temporary use permit fee of $50 for mobile use vehicles (food or medical) was
established by Ordinance No. 2443-13 (effective July 13, 2013).
Engineering Department
With department restructuring, certain fee items previously under Public Works are now under
Engineering. There are no proposed City Code Appendix A fee changes for 2014.
Inspections Department
Permit and license fees proposed by the Inspections Department were increased when
appropriate to reflect inflationary costs and remain consistent with the “fee for service” program
philosophy.
The fees proposed to be increased for 2014 were 3% or less except for the Tree Maintenance
license and Solid Waste license vehicle decals. The proposed decal fee for the Tree Maintenance
license is $10, a $2.00 increase per decal. For the Solid Waste decal, the fee is proposed to be
$25, a $5.00 increase per decal.
A new fee of $750 for water access charge was established by Ordinance 2436-13 and
Resolution 13-010 (effective Jan. 1, 2014). This new fee was added and is based on the
additional future infrastructure needs projected, along with the estimated number of additional
WAC units generated over the next 20 years.
Operations & Recreation Department - With department restructuring, certain fee items
previously under Public Works are now under Operations & Recreation. There are no proposed
City Code Appendix A fee changes.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ____-13
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2014.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 15, 2012 by Ordinance No. 2422-12 for
the calendar year 2013 which is hereby rescinded.
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES
Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100
Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100
Chapter 12 – Environment $50
Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health
Regulations Adopted by Reference
$100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50
Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50
Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50
Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling
Containers blocking public way
$25
Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or
injuring
$150
Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves into street
prohibited
$100
Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way
without a permit
$100
Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision
approval.
$750
Chapter 32 – Utilities $50
Chapter 36 – Zoning $50
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not
permitted in the zoning district
$100
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use
Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit
approval
$750
Repeat Violations within 24 Months
Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous
violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if
there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a
$50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400
(first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated
with abatement and licensing inspections.
ASSESSING
Record Deed Transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording cost
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
Domestic Partnership
Registration Application Fee $50
Amendment to Application Fee $25
Termination of Registration Fee $25
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
Conditional Use Permit $2,000
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Fence Permit
Installation $15
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50
Official Map Amendment $500
Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
Driveway Permit $25
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary PUD $2,000
Final PUD $2,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250
PUD - Major Amendment $2,000
PUD - Minor Amendment $1,000
Recording Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
Registration of Land Use $50
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $30
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100
Special Permits
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $800
Subdivision Dedication
Park Dedication (in lieu of land)
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of the unimproved
as determined by city assessor
Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $800 plus $90 per lot
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
Final Plat $500
Combined Process and Replats $900 plus $90 per lot
Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $300
Temporary Use
Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,000
Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50
Time Extension $150
Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $115 per caliper inch
Variances
Commercial $500
Residential $300
Zoning Appeal $300
Zoning Letter $50
Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and
Gutter Permit
$10 per 10 linear feet
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $50 per hole
Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
Service Fees
Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75.00
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75.00
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500
All Other Buildings $5,000
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $150 $160
All Other Buildings $220 $240
Building Moving Permit $500
Business Licenses
Billboards $140 per billboard
Commercial Entertainment $280
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
Courtesy Bench $50
Dog Kennel $150
Environmental Emissions $310
Massage Therapy Establishment $330
Massage Therapy License $100
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment
License
$25 $30
Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $2
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $485 $500
Vehicle Parking Facilities
Enclosed Parking $215
Parking Ramp $165
Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed after building
occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $300
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $450
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $670
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $880
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,100
above 200,000 sq ft $1,310
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $55
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $55
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $140
Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $300
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building +$12 per unit
Single Family Dwellings $220
All Other Buildings:
Up to 5,000 sq ft $300
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $450
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $670
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $880
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,100
above 200,000 sq. ft $1,310
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance $70
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire
protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
Up to $500 Base Fee $45
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $45 + $2 for each additional
(or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $75 + $15 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
$1,000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $420 + $10 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $670 + $7 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,020 + $5.60 for each additional (
fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $100.000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,260 + $4.75 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,635 + $4.25 for each additional (
fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $1,000,000.01
Construction Permits (cont.)
Single Family Residential Exceptions:
Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only
House or House and Garage $140
Garage Only $70
Residing
House or House and Garage $140
Garage Only $70
Electrical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
Single family, one appliance $45
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review $150
ISTS Permit
(sewage treatment system install or repair) $125
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $65
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $65
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $45
Plumbing Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $45
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace/repair sewer or water service $75
Water Access Charge $750
Competency Exams Fees
Mechanical per test $30
Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30
Contractor Licenses
Mechanical $100
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
Solid Waste $200
Tree Maintenance $90
Dog Licenses
1 year $25
2 year $40
3 year $50
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250
Interim License $15
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55
Penalty for no license $40
Inspections
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building
permit table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has
not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)
$130
Insurance Requirements A minimum of:
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $125
License Fees - Other
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business
license
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Transfer of License (new ownership) $75
Plan Review
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Rental Housing License
Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $80 per unit
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $150 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit
Multiple Family
Per Building $170
Per Unit $12
Single Family Unit $100 per dwelling unit
Temporary Noise Permit $60
Temporary Use Permits
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260
Commercial Film Production Application $80 $90
Petting Zoos $60
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
Vehicle Decals
Solid Waste $20 $25
Tree Maintenance & Removal $8 $10
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animals
Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $25
2nd offense w/in year $40
3rd offense w/in year $50
4th offense w/in year $75
Boarding Per Day $25
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5
False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $100
Late payment fee 10%
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150
Lost ID Replacement Fee $25
Vehicle Forfeiture
Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250
OPERATIONS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $30 each
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25
No off-street parking available No Charge
Off-street parking available $125
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2014.
Public Hearing October 7, 2013
Second Reading October 21, 2013
Date of Publication October 25, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2014
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 21, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2014 Fee Ordinance
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-13
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR
BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
This ordinance sets 2014 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The
fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2014.
Adopted by the City Council October 21, 2013
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 31, 2013
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b(1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #1 budget and
property owner service charges?
SUMMARY: The 2014 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the 6 districts and received
their support for approving the 2014 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Recreation Center budget will incur a
service charge for the City-owned property located within this district at 3700 Monterey Drive
(Recreation Center/Wolfe Park). The proposed service charge for 2014 is $22,802.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2014 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2014 Budget
Proposed 2014 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(1)) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On November 6, 2006, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service
charge for Special Service District No. 1 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard from
Quentin Avenue to Highway 100 and along Park Center Boulevard and Monterey Drive).
Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public hearing
on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners Board approved the
proposed 2014 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 20 and October 3, 2013. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 1 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$122,930.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2014 budget amount of $126,672; no increase from 2013; and
• 2014 service charge amount of $86,672; no increase from 2013. Generally, expenses
typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount along with
the service charges for 2014 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the goal of a
50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(1)) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 1 (the “District”) . The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 06-167, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2016 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 06-167, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 06-167, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2014 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $126,672 is hereby
approved as recommended by the Special Service District No. 1 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2014 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 is $86,672
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2013 Final Budget 2014 Proposed
Budget
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,000.00 1,000.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 10,000.00 10,000.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 11,000.00 11,000.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 3,600.00 3,600.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 0.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,600.00 3,600.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 4,500.00 4,500.00
LEGAL
6630 - SSD - snow removal 53,000.00 48,000.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 5,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 2,400.00 2,400.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 9,000.00 8,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 7,000.00 7,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 28,500.00 25,000.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 153.00 153.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 519.00 519.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7205 - BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 8,500.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 3,000.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,672.00 126,672.00
SSD #1 Budget - 2014
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(1))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2014 Service Charge
OWNER PROPOSED ACTUAL
2014 2013
PAR.PID SERVICE SERVICE
NO.NO.CHARGE CHARGE
1 3601 Park Center Boulevard PCOB Properties LLC 06-028-24-33-0019 $4,317 $4,317
2 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Dayton Hudson Corp.06-028-24-33-0015 $9,348 $9,348
3 3777 Park Center Boulevard Park Center Ltd.06-028-24-33-0014 $9,820 $9,820
4 5400 Auto Club Way AAA Minneapolis 07-028-24-22-0004 $4,755 $4,755
5 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0035 $3,687 $3,687
6 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC 07-028-24-22-0036 $5,314 $5,314
7 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC 07-028-24-22-0037 $1,210 $1,210
8 5100 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0034 $1,690 $1,690
9 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 $5,003 $5,003
10 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 $1,111 $1,111
11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0033 $3,004 $3,004
12 5000 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0032 $675 $675
13 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Koblas 07-028-24-21-0006 $492 $492
14 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0005 $407 $407
15 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0004 $602 $602
16 4951 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0253 $3,904 $3,904
17 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0023 $556 $556
18 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0024 $748 $748
19 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0025 $517 $517
20 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.07-028-24-22-0026 $6,710 $6,710
21 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-34-0022 $22,802 $22,802
TOTALS:$86,672 $86,672
Notes:
1)The proposed 2014 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
2)For 2014, there were no changes from the 2013 budget or service charges.
3)The proposed 2014 budget is $126,672, but the service charge is only $86,672 because $40,000 was transferred from reserves
to lower the fund balance.
4)Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis.
5)All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(1))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b(2)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #2 budget and
property owner service charges?
SUMMARY: The 2014 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the 6 districts and received
their support for approving the 2014 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Public Works Operations Division
budget will incur a service charge for the City-owned property located within this district at 3929
Excelsior Boulevard (bus shelter). The proposed service charge for 2014 is $58.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2014 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2014 Budget
Proposed 2014 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(2)) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On October 20, 2008, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service
charge for Special Service District No. 2 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard from
Monterey Drive/38th Street to France Avenue). Annually, the City Council must set a service
charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service
District Property Owners approved the proposed 2014 budget and service charges. The notice of
public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on September 20 and October 3, 2013. The
public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 2 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$28,408.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2014 budget amount of $46,534; reflects no increase from 2013; and
• 2014 service charge amount of $43,453; a $5,000 increase from 2013 needed for
increased infrastructure maintenance. Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of
budget. The expected unused budget amount along with the service charges for 2014 is
anticipated to allow the district to achieve the goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and
board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(2)) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 2 (the “District”) . The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 08-133, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2018 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 08-133, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 08-133, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2014 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $46,534 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 2 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2014 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $43,453
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2013 Final Budget 2014 Proposed Budget
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 200.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 6,000.00 6,500.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 6,200.00 6,700.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 3,000.00 3,000.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 0.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,000.00 3,000.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,000.00 2,000.00
LEGAL
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 4,000.00 3,500.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 7,000.00 7,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 20,000.00 15,000.00
POSTAGE
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 143.00 143.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 191.00 191.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 5,000.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00
7301 - SSD pedestrian 0.00 0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 46,534.00 46,534.00
SSD #2 Budget - 2014
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(2))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2014 Service Charge
PROPOSED ACTUAL
2014 2013
PID SERVICE SERVICE
OWNER NO.CHARGE CHARGE
3924 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0003 $2,515 $2,226
3542 Minikadha Ct.Sage Company
3551 Huntington Ave.Frank Murray
4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 06-028-24-41-0008 $1,460 $1,292
4120 Excelsior Blvd James & Anne Mattson 06-028-24-41-0009 $1,495 $1,323
3921 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP 06-028-24-41-0010 $796 $705
3939 Excelsior Blvd Reuben L Anderson-Cherne, Inc.06-028-24-41-0014 $1,251 $1,107
3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James
4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan
4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller
4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams
4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong
3601 Huntington Ave.Martin & Alice Fowler
3901 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP 06-028-24-41-0047 $1,473 $1,304
3900 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0072 $4,484 $3,969
3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-41-0067 $58 $51
3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.06-028-24-41-0068 $923 $817
3947 Excelsior Blvd KMS Management 06-028-24-41-0070 $2,071 $1,834
4300 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0017 $670 $593
4306 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0018 $573 $508
4308 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0019 $790 $699
4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 06-028-24-43-0020 $1,497 $1,325
4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 06-028-24-43-0021 $888 $786
3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington
4409 Excelsior Blvd Samfar Real Estate Inc 06-028-24-43-0040 $783 $693
4415 Excelsior Blvd LynnJoy Holdings LLC 06-028-24-43-0041 $696 $616
4419 Excelsior Blvd Celine Properties LLC 06-028-24-43-0042 $1,611 $1,426
4424 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0064 $1,337 $1,184
4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 06-028-24-43-0091 $1,295 $1,147
4320 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0186 $2,215 $1,961
4400 Excelsior Blvd Kamps & Associates LLC 06-028-24-43-0187 $5,342 $4,728
4140 Excelsior Blvd Larson Enterprises 06-028-24-44-0001 $2,585 $2,288
3600 Huntington Ave.Elmer Nordstrom
4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali
4221 Excelsior Blvd Prima Investments LLC 06-028-24-44-0088 $429 $379
4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix
4201 Excelsior Blvd AMF Properties LLC 06-028-24-44-0173 $2,515 $2,226
4200 Excelsior Blvd Di-Jo-Mi Family LTD Partnership 06-028-24-44-0175 $1,705 $1,509
4150 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 06-028-24-44-0176 $2,077 $1,838
TOTALS:$43,534 $38,534
Notes:
1)The proposed 2014 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2)The proposed 2014 budget is $46,534 but the service charge is only $43,534 because $3,000 was
transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
ADDRESS
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(2))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b(3)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #3 budget and
property owner service charges?
SUMMARY: The 2014 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the 6 districts and received
their support for approving the 2014 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The TIF / Admin budget will incur a service
charge for the City-owned property located within this district at 4790 Excelsior Boulevard
(undeveloped property next to the old Bally’s Fitness). The proposed service charge for 2014 is
$950.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2014 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2014 Budget
Proposed 2014 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On October 15, 2012, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 3 (located along Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to
Monterey Drive/W. 38th Street). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the
District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District
Property Owners approved the proposed 2014 budget and service charges. The notice of public
hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on September 20 and October 3, 2013. The public
hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 3 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 3 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$69,855.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2014 budget amount of $63,600; reflects no increase from 2013; and
• 2014 service charge amount of $43,600; a $6,000 decrease from 2013 used to lower the
fund balance. Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected
unused budget amount along with the service charges for 2014 is anticipated to allow the
district to achieve the goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be
maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(3)) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 3
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2224-02, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 3 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 12-149, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2022 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 12-149, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 12-149, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2014 Budget for Special Service District No. 3 of $63,600 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 3 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2014 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 is $43,600
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2013 Final Budget 2014 Proposed Budget
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 5,400.00 5,400.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 5,900.00 5,900.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 2,400.00 2,400.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 0.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 2,400.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
LEGAL
6630 - SSD - snow removal 28,500.00 23,500.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 5,000.00 5,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 2,400.00 2,400.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 12,500.00 12,500.00
POSTAGE
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 139.00 139.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 261.00 261.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7205 - BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 0.00 0.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 5,000.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00
7301 - SSD pedestrian 0.00 0.00
8501 - OTHER EXPENSE
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 63,600.00 63,600.00
SSD #3 Budget - 2014
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(3))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #3
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2014 Service Charge
Sidewalk Front Proposed Actual
Area Footage 2014 2013
Address Owner (SF)(LF)PID No.Service
Charge
Service
Charge
4911 Exc Blvd J & F Reddy Rents Inc 653 47 07-028-24-21-0033 $618 $703
4907 Exc Blvd C/O Carol Lindgren 528 50 07-028-24-21-0032 $592 $673
4901 Exc Blvd Margolis Law Firm 596 50 07-028-24-21-0031 $619 $704
4825 Exc Blvd Steve Sanders, Chief Mgr 740 50 07-028-24-21-0017 $675 $768
4821 Exc Blvd Steve Sanders, Chief Mgr 740 48 07-028-24-21-0016 $660 $751
4811 Exc Blvd Robert B Fine 1,173 100 07-028-24-21-0015 $1,230 $1,399
4801 Exc Blvd Gregory Loffhagen 1,562 98 07-028-24-21-0252 $1,367 $1,555
4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Investments LLC 2,929 230 07-028-24-21-0012 $2,919 $3,321
4701 Exc Blvd J & J Wolfe Properties LLC 1,243 170 07-028-24-21-0011 $1,796 $2,043
4637 Exc Blvd 4617 Excelsior Blvd LLC 1,679 100 07-028-24-21-0009 $1,428 $1,625
4617 Exc Blvd 4617 Excelsior Blvd LLC 1,554 100 07-028-24-12-0052 $1,379 $1,569
4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann 1,179 74 07-028-24-12-0051 $1,032 $1,174
4611 Exc Blvd Diamond Group LLC 1,488 92 07-028-24-12-0050 $1,292 $1,470
4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd LLP 2,930 187 07-028-24-12-0049 $2,589 $2,945
4509 Exc Blvd Park Blvd LLP 1,721 150 07-028-24-12-0048 $1,829 $2,081
4501 Exc Blvd Laurel Properties 890 71 07-028-24-12-0047 $896 $1,019
4900 Exc Blvd Fitness International LLC 5,190 193 07-028-24-21-0002 $3,522 $4,006
4760 Exc Blvd SLP EDA 1,087 68 07-028-24-21-0258 $950 $1,081
4730 Exc Blvd Excelsior & Grand LLC 7,746 542 07-028-24-21-0256 $7,210 $8,202
4630 Exc Blvd Excelsior & Grand LLC 6,550 472 07-028-24-12-0175 $6,202 $7,056
4500 Exc Blvd Blakeley Props & Chalen LP E 7,612 235 06-028-24-43-0191 $4,795 $5,455
49,790 3,127 Total $43,600 $49,600
Notes:
1)The proposed 2014 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
A) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis.
B) All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
2)The proposed 2014 budget is $63,600 but the service charge is only $43,600 because $20,000 was
transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(3))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b(4)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #4 budget and
property owner service charges?
SUMMARY: The 2014 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the 6 districts and received
their support for approving the 2014 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Public Works Operations budget will
incur a service charge for the City-owned municipal parking lot located within this district. The
proposed service charge for 2014 is $428.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2014 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2014 Budget
Proposed 2014 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(4)) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On July 18, 2005, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 4. (located along Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 to Louisiana
Avenue). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public
hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners approved the
proposed 2014 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 20 and October 3, 2013. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 4 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 4 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$62,375.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2014 budget amount of $29,644; reflects a $9,000 decrease from 2013 after a detailed
review of expected future expenditures; and
• 2014 service charge amount of $14,664; no change from 2013. Generally, expenses
typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount along with
the service charges for 2014 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the goal of a
50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(4)) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2298-05, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 4 (the “District”) . The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 05-100, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2015 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 05-100, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 05-100, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2014 Budget for Special Service District No. 4 of $29,664 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 4 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2014 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4 is $14,664
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2013 Final Budget 2014 Proposed Budget
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 950.00 950.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 5,000.00 4,000.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 5,950.00 4,950.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 2,000.00 1,000.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 1,000.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
LEGAL
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,500.00 1,500.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 5,000.00 4,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 4,000.00 4,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 16,000.00 10,000.00
POSTAGE
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 56.00 56.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 158.00 158.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 500.00 500.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 0.00
UTILITIES
7301 - SSD pedestrian 0.00 0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 38,664.00 29,664.00
SSD #4 Budget - 2014
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(4))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #4
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2014 Service Charge
Proposed Actual
2014 2013
PAR Service Service
NO.PID #Owner Charge Charge
1 21-117-21-32-0022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White $279 $279
2 21-117-21-32-0021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC $345 $345
3 21-117-21-32-0006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Full Circle Equities LLC $562 $562
4 21-117-21-23-0100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Ward Properties $554 $554
5 21-117-21-23-0097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation $268 $268
6 21-117-21-24-0195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Dys Properties $734 $734
7 21-117-21-24-0185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC $704 $704
8 21-117-21-24-0209 5813 Excelsior Blvd Universal Outdoor, Inc.$35 $35
9 21-117-21-24-0208 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP $239 $239
10 21-117-21-24-0161 5801 Excelsior Blvd MGV Holdings LLC $276 $276
11 21-117-21-24-0193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc $624 $624
12 21-117-21-24-0141 5707 Excelsior Blvd Len Paul/Gene Pretty Good LLC $475 $475
13 20-117-21-41-0009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $2,028 $2,028
14 20-117-21-14-0026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $1,074 $1,074
15*6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd $1,541 $1,541
16 21-117-21-23-0130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co.$306 $306
17 21-117-21-23-0155 6100 Excelsior Blvd Laurene I Meger $213 $213
18 21-117-21-23-0128 6006 Excelsior Blvd RRK LLC $154 $154
19 21-117-21-23-0127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Fitrz Inc $296 $296
20 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park $428 $428
21 21-117-21-23-0011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley $210 $210
22 21-117-21-23-0010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Muriel B. Frederick $99 $99
23 21-117-21-23-0156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner $518 $518
24 21-117-21-24-0083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Realty Income Props 3 LLC $469 $469
25 21-117-21-24-0067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co $396 $396
26 21-117-21-24-0066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC $338 $338
27 21-117-21-24-0040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc.$597 $597
28 21-117-21-24-0202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer $367 $367
29 21-117-21-24-0019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Payday America Inc.$535 $535
$14,664 $14,664
**Denoted properties that are in phase 2
construction, is so will not be charged
in 2011
**6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2014 2013
21-117-21-32-0133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 Mark S Bloomberg $90 $90
21-117-21-32-0134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $94 $94
21-117-21-32-0135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $91 $91
21-117-21-32-0136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $102 $102
21-117-21-32-0137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $87 $87
21-117-21-32-0138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $91 $91
21-117-21-32-0139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Unite Rope Holland Dist $119 $119
21-117-21-32-0140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $105 $105
21-117-21-32-0141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $96 $96
21-117-21-32-0142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 Lgh Properties LLC $89 $89
21-117-21-32-0143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Donald J & Joyce E Borgen $98 $98
21-117-21-32-0144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 Lgh Properties LLC $88 $88
21-117-21-32-0145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James V and June M Fieger $94 $94
21-117-21-32-0146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $85 $85
21-117-21-32-0147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 Lgh Properties LLC $124 $124
21-117-21-32-0148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Joseph Urista $88 $88
$1,541 $1,541
Notes:
*Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned.
1)The proposed 2014 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2)The proposed 2014 budget is $38,664 but the service charge is only $14,664 because $24,000 was
transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
Address
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(4))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b(5)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #5 budget and
property owner service charges?
SUMMARY: The 2014 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the 6 districts and received
their support for approving the 2014 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. There is not any City owned properties
within this district.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2014 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2014 Budget
Proposed 2014 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(5)) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On February 2, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 5 (located along Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar
Lake Road). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a
public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners approved
the proposed 2014 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 20 and October 3, 2013. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 5 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 5 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$20,284.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2014 budget amount of $27,198; reflects no change from 2013; and
• 2014 service charge amount of $18,698; no change from 2013. Generally, expenses
typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget amount along with
the service charges for 2014 is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the goal of a
50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(5)) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2371-09, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 5 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 09-021, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2015 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 09-021, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 09-021, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2014 Budget for Special Service District No. 5 of $27,198 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 5 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2014 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5 is $18,698
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2013 Final Budget 2014 Proposed Budget
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00
6223 - banner replacement 0.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 5,000.00 5,000.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 5,500.00 5,500.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 3,250.00 3,250.00
LEGAL
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 500.00 500.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 9,000.00 9,000.00
POSTAGE
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 136.00 136.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 112.00 112.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 300.00 300.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,400.00 1,400.00
7301 - SSD pedestrian 0.00
7301 - SSD decorative 0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 27,198.00 27,198.00
SSD #5 Budget - 2014
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(5))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #5
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2014 Service Charge
Proposed Actual
2014 2013
PID Address Owner Service
Charge
Service
Charge
04-117-21-31-0018 5611 Wayzata Blvd KK Corporation $721 $721
04-117-21-31-0019 1500 Park Place Blvd Doubletree Hotel $4,234 $4,234
04-117-21-34-0043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd Inland Real Estate Corp $1,515 $1,515
04-117-21-34-0044 1690 Park Place Blvd James & Patricia Oslund $667 $667
04-117-21-34-0045 1650 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $820 $820
04-117-21-34-0046 1620 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $743 $743
04-117-21-34-0047 5699 16th St W Inland Real Estate Corp $746 $746
04-117-21-34-0049 1700 Park Place Blvd Costco Wholesale $584 $584
04-117-21-34-0050 5601 16th St W Inland Ryan LLC $572 $572
30-029-24-32-0026 5353 Wayzata Blvd 5353 Wayzata LLC $1,477 $1,477
30-029-24-33-0011 5401 Gamble Dr MLCFC 2006-4 S $1,305 $1,305
30-029-24-33-0015 5402 Parkdale Dr MLCFC 2006-4 S $2,360 $2,360
30-029-24-32-0022 5370 16th St W Shops at West End $667 $667
30-029-24-33-0031 1600 West End Blvd Shops at West End $2,287 $2,287
$18,698 $18,698
Notes:
1)The proposed 2014 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2)The 2014 budget is $27,198 but the service charge is only $18,698 because $8500 was transferred
from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(5))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b(6)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2014 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 6
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve SSD #6 budget and
property owner service charges?
SUMMARY: The 2014 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the 6 districts and received
their support for approving the 2014 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. There is not any City owned properties
within this district.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2014 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2014 Budget
Proposed 2014 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(6)) Page 2
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On June 15, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 6 (located along 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100).
Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public hearing
on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners approved the proposed
2014 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor
on September 20 and October 3, 2013. The public hearing notice was sent to all property owners
within the District.
Special Service District No. 6 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 6 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$27,709.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2014 budget amount of $25,155; no change from 2013; and
• 2014 service charge amount of $13,155; $6,000 decrease from 2013 to lower the fund
balance reserve. Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The
expected unused budget amount along with the service charges for 2014 is anticipated to
allow the district to achieve the goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed
should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Tom Scott.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(6)) Page 3
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2374-09, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 5 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 09-078, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2015 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 09-078, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 09-078, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2014 Budget for Special Service District No. 6 of $25,155 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 6 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2014 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 6 is $13,155
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2013 Final Budget 2014 Proposed Budget
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 200.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,700.00 3,700.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 3,900.00 3,900.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
LEGAL
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,500.00 3,500.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 9,000.00 9,000.00
POSTAGE
COMMUNICATIONS
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 151.00 151.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 104.00 104.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,000.00 1,000.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 0.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,155.00 25,155.00
SSD #6 Budget - 2014
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(6))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #6
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2014 Service Charge
Proposed Actual
2014 2013
PID Address Owner Service
Charge
Service
Charge
16-117-21-34-0027 3601 Wooddale Ave TowerLight Senior Living $2,277 $3,315
16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W SLP Harmony Marketplace LLC $2,130 $3,103
16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC $2,027 $2,952
16-117-21-34-0068 5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,205 $1,755
16-117-21-34-0040 5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,205 $1,755
16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Arnold R Bloomquist $846 $1,232
16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $761 $1,108
16-117-21-34-0024 3575 Wooddale Ave City of St. Louis Park $402 $585
16-117-21-34-0042 5814 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $402 $585
16-117-21-34-0041 5816 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $402 $585
16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LRJ of Minnesota Ltd Partnership $402 $585
16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $402 $585
16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC $402 $585
16-117-21-34-0015 3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC $292 $425
16-117-21-34-0001 5810 37th St W Rottlund Homes $0 $0
Total $13,155 $19,155
Notes:
1)The proposed 2014 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2)The proposed 2014 budget is $25,155 but the service charge is only $13,155 because $12,000 was paid
from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 6b(6))
Title: 2014 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave &
3998 Wooddale Ave
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Map for 4017 Utica
Avenue and 3998 Wooddale Avenue South from R-2 Single-Family Residence to R-4
Multiple-Family Residence.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Wooddale Flats
with Subdivision Variance and conditions.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for Wooddale Flats with conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to rezone the subject property,
approve the Preliminary and Final Plat with subdivision variance and approve the proposed
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and modifications for Wooddale Flats?
SUMMARY: The subject property is the site of the former Most Holy Trinity Church and
School. The proposed development includes six new condominium buildings with a total of 33
units. The existing church/school building, playground and two single-family homes would be
razed. The project includes five three-story buildings and one two-story building. The proposed
site plan provides sidewalk connections through and around the site and includes areas for
stormwater management, outdoor recreation, and landscaping. The development provides on-
site parking for residents in garages and in 52 surface stalls along a private driveway behind the
six buildings. The overall net density of the development would be 15 units per acre.
Wooddale Flats, LLC requests final approvals of the Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Plat and
Preliminary and Final PUD. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning,
Preliminary and Final Plat and Preliminary and Final PUD at its September 18, 2013 meeting
with a 4-0 vote. An excerpt of the draft meeting minutes is attached.
Approval of the Final PUD requires a supermajority of the full City Council (five of the seven members).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Ordinance
Resolutions
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Zoning Map
Development Plans
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
The Church of the Most Holy Trinity was established on the site in 1944. They merged with Our
Lady of Grace in Edina and closed at the subject property in December of 2011. A charter school
that was operating in the building subsequently closed in 2012. Gatehouse Properties Ltd. has
entered into a purchase agreement with Our Lady of Grace for the site. The purchase includes
two parcels containing two single-family homes, the church/school building and a playground.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Comprehensive Plan: Medium Density Residential (MH)
Current Zoning: R2 Single-Family Residence District
Proposed Zoning: R4 Multiple-Family Residence District (portion of property)
Property Area: 93,638 square feet or 2.15 acres (net area)
Existing Use: Vacant; Former Most Holy Trinity Church & School building and
grounds
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Wooddale Flats, LLC proposes to develop six new townhome buildings for a total of 33 units
with garage and on-site surface parking. The existing church and school building, playground
and the two single-family homes on the property would be demolished. The site is currently five
to six feet below the grade of the surrounding streets, effectively sitting as a bowl between
Wooddale Avenue to the east, Toledo Avenue to the south and Utica Avenue to the west. The
applicant proposes to fill the site so it has a similar elevation to adjacent streets.
The development would include a two-story building on the south end of the site and five three-
story buildings moving north along Wooddale Avenue. The two-story building contains three
units and each three-story building contains six units, for a total of 33 units and a density of 15
units per acre. The units will be marketed as owner-occupied condos. The three-story buildings
each provide two roof-top decks, with one deck available for purchase by a single unit, and the
other deck remaining available for the other units of that building.
The site was designed with the two-story building on the south end of the property as a transition
from the single-family residential
to the three-story buildings. The
buildings are placed closer to the
street to enhance the frontage
along Wooddale Avenue. The
developer is also proposing to
bury the overhead electric lines
along the site’s frontage on
Wooddale Avenue.
The site plan includes areas for
underground storm water
management, landscaping, a dog
exercise area and outdoor
recreation. Parking will be
provided in attached garages and
in surface parking lots on-site. In addition to landscaping provided throughout the site, five
vegetable gardens will be provided for residents’ use.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
REZONING:
The project site includes two parcels which the applicant is requesting to rezone. Both parcels are
guided for Medium Density Residential (RM) in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This guidance
was recently approved by the City Council on August 5, 2013. Rezoning the properties from R-2
Single-Family Residence to R-4 Multiple-Family Residence is proposed to make the zoning
consistent with the land use guidance. In the Comprehensive Plan, Medium-Density Residential
allows densities up to 30 units per acre, and R-4 Multiple-Family Residence zoning generally
allows densities up to 30 units per acre.
The rezoning to R4 is appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Staff
and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT:
The Wooddale Flats plat would combine two parcels. A plat is required as Parcel 2 is currently
described by metes and bounds. The plat also dedicates right-of-way over a portion Wooddale
Avenue South and a turn-around for the alley located on the western edge of the subject
property.
Lot Information:
The newly platted property would be “Lot 1 Block 1 Wooddale Flats” and be 93,638 square feet
(2.15 acres) in size.
Right-of-way Dedication:
The plat dedicates approximately 9,792 square feet of right-of-way over Wooddale Avenue
South and approximately 2,063 square feet of right-of-way for the turn-around at the end of the
alley on the western side of the Wooddale Flats site.
Utility Easements:
The plat provides all required drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the site,
except along the perimeter of the alley turn-around. City engineering staff have requested that
the easement not be provided along the alley turn-around. Not providing the easement in this
area requires the granting of a subdivision variance.
Subdivision Variance: Due to the topography of the site, a retaining wall around the alley turn-
around is required. Because of the retaining wall, site constraints related to topography, and
space constraints between the retaining wall and parking curb, engineering staff have determined
an easement along the alley turn-around is not needed. Additionally, City engineering staff have
indicated that if utilities were to be placed in this area, they would be placed in a linear route
along the alley or under it, and not in a circuitous route along the turn-around. Staff finds that the
granting of the variance is warranted due to site constraints related to topography and drainage,
and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, nor is the granting of the variance contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
All utility service lines must be buried.
Park & Trail Dedication
The developer will be required to pay park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication.
The current park dedication fee is $1,500 per dwelling unit, and the current trail dedication fee is
$225 per unit. The total park dedication fee is $49,500, and the total trail dedication fee is
$7,425. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommended approval of the park and
trail dedication fees in lieu of land dedication at their September 18, 2013 meeting.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
Public Sidewalks
The existing public sidewalk along Wooddale Avenue is 6.5’ wide with a narrow boulevard
along the southern portion of the subject property and a narrow bituminous strip to the back of
the curb along the northern portion of the subject property. The existing sidewalk along Utica
Avenue is 6’ wide with an approximately 5’6” boulevard and the existing sidewalk along Toledo
Avenue is 5’ wide with an approximately 5’ boulevard. The zoning code requires sidewalks to be
six feet wide adjacent to multiple family developments. The plan proposes to remove and replace
the sidewalks surrounding the site at the required six feet width and generally provides a five feet
wide landscaped boulevard between the sidewalk and street curb. In addition to providing a new
boulevard and burying the overhead electric lines along this portion of Wooddale Avenue, new
boulevard trees will be planted along Wooddale, Toledo and Utica Avenues.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat with
subdivision variance.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD REVIEW:
The following analysis in the Zoning Compliance Table assumes the zoning will change to R4
Multiple Family Residential as requested by the applicant. The proposal meets most
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Some modifications to the standards may be approved
with a PUD.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
Zoning Compliance Table.
Factor Allowed/Required Proposed Met
Use Multiple Family Residence 33-unit Townhome
Development
Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres for a PUD 2.15 acres Yes
Density 30 units/acre; more with a PUD 15 units/acre Yes
Height 3 stories or 40 feet; taller buildings
allowed with a PUD
Bldg 1: 26 feet Yes
Bldgs. 2-6: 3 stories and 43 feet
to top of parapet
(PUD modification required)
Parking 76 stalls (1 per bedroom) 86 off-street stalls; 5 provided
for adjacent property
Yes
Front Yard
(East)
Bldg. 1: 34 feet; modifications
allowed with a PUD
15 feet
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Bldgs. 2-6: 43 feet; modifications
allowed with a PUD
15 feet
(PUD modification required)
Rear Yard
(West)
Bldg. 1: 25 feet ~36 feet Yes
Bldgs. 2-6: 25 feet to garage
43 feet to units; modifications allowed
with a PUD
Bldg. 4: 15 feet to garage
(PUD modification required)
All other rear setbacks
exceeded
Side Yard
(North)
35 feet; modifications allowed with a
PUD
20 feet
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Side Yard
(South)
23 feet; modifications allowed with a
PUD
14 feet
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Distance
between
Buildings
Bldgs. 1-2: 35 feet
Bldgs. 2-6: 43 feet
Modifications allowed with a PUD
Bldgs. 1-2: 13 feet
Bldgs. 2-6: 17 feet
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Floor Area
Ratio
.7; modifications allowed with a PUD 0.91
(PUD modification required)
Yes
Ground
Floor Area
Ratio
0.35 .31
Yes
D.O.R.A. 11,237 square feet (12%) 13,881 (14.8%)
Yes
Landscaping 76 trees 77 trees Yes
189 shrubs 207 shrubs, 345
perennials/grasses
Alternative landscaping Roof top decks, pedestrian
connections, dog exercise area,
vegetable gardens
Stormwater Required city and watershed standards Storm water management is
provided
Yes
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
Architectural Design
Description
The two-story building and three-story buildings make use of similar materials and design
elements so that they are complementary to one another. The architecture of the two-story
building is more similar to a large, single-family home with the design of its decks, front
entrance and gabled roof. The three-story buildings incorporate columns at the building edges,
with decks, multiple planes, and a mix of materials on the front façade to break up the mass of
the building.
The two-story building is 33’ to the top of the gable. The three-story buildings are 42’6” to the
top of the parapet wall which surrounds the roof-top decks. The three-story buildings have
elements in the center of the building over the stairwells and service areas of the roof-top decks
that are 48’ and the height to the top of the elevator penthouse is 51’.
Materials
Building materials include brick, glass, stucco, stone sills and cement board siding. The
percentage of class I materials varies depending on the elevation, and ranges from 60% to 78%.
The building meets the minimum 60% class I requirement on each building elevation.
Parking
The zoning code requires one parking stall per bedroom for multiple family residential buildings.
The development has a total of 76 bedrooms and provides 86 on-site parking spaces in a
combination of 34 garage stalls and 52 surface parking stalls. The plan exceeds City parking
requirements.
There is an easement recorded against 4029 Utica Avenue, to the west of Wooddale Flats, which
grants the use of a portion of land to Wooddale Flats. This property has historically used a
portion of the Most Holy Trinity parking lot, yet no agreement has been in place. The two
properties have drafted an access and parking agreement in which Wooddale Flats will provide
five parking spaces to 4029 Utica Avenue. Subtracting those five spaces from the total spaces
provided on the Wooddale Flats property leaves 81 parking stalls available to Wooddale Flats.
Utilities and Storm Water
Utilities
City engineering staff and the Building Official have reviewed the plans. All private utilities will
be buried. The applicant is also proposing to bury the overhead electric lines on Wooddale
Avenue along the subject property. A sanitary connection has been proposed from the site to a
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) line in Wooddale Avenue. The applicant
has applied for the permit for this connection.
Storm Water
The site presents a number of challenges to managing storm water as it is essentially a bowl
between Wooddale Avenue, Utica Avenue and Toledo Avenue. The site currently has nine
“French drains”, which are catch basins and a pipe that runs directly into the ground. This system
is no longer allowed in the state of Minnesota. Due to the topography of the site and the French
drains, no storm water currently leaves the site.
The applicant has proposed an underground storage and infiltration storm water management
system which has been reviewed by City engineering staff and Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District staff. The Watershed District is requiring a system that holds all storm water from a
100-year flood event on-site. The applicant is revising the system plans in conversation with City
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
engineering staff and Watershed District staff. The proposed system will meet the City’s rate
control requirements. The final plan requires review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
Grading
The grading plan includes the filling in of the majority of the subject property. The project
engineer has projected that approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill will be required. There are
areas of the site that will still be approximately one to two feet below the grades of the adjacent
streets.
Typical construction equipment will be used on-site, such as excavators and dump trucks. The
Grading Plan delineates that construction equipment to and from the site shall be limited to
Highway 100 to Excelsior Boulevard to Wooddale Avenue to either Toledo Avenue or Vernon
Avenue and Utica Avenue to the site. Engineering Plans indicate that no traffic is to travel south
of the site access points on Toledo Avenue or Utica Avenue. The Plans also indicate that
workforce parking is to occur on the project site.
City engineering staff have reviewed the grading plan and are working with the project engineer
on final revisions. Final approval by City engineering staff and the submission of a Soil Analysis
Report of intended fill material is required before the issuance of an Erosion Control Permit.
Traffic and Circulation:
A traffic study was conducted by SRF Consulting Group when the City reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The study concluded that the surrounding street and
intersection capacity is sufficient to handle the projected traffic from the proposed development.
A comparison between the last three years of enrollment at the school and the proposed
Wooddale Flats development was made for traffic impacts. The study indicates that there would
be a slight increase in the overall number of average daily trips, a similar number of p.m. peak
hour trips and significantly fewer a.m. peak hour trips. An excerpt and summary table from the
report are below.
“Results of the trip generation estimates shown in Table 3 indicate the proposed redevelopment is
expected to generate 15 a.m. peak hour, 17 p.m. peak hour, and 198 daily trips. Daily trips generated by
the proposed redevelopment are expected to be slightly higher than trips generated by the charter school
in more recent years (year 2009 through year 2011). However, the peak hour trip generation estimates
indicate the proposed redevelopment is likely to generate roughly the same amount of p.m. peak hour
trips, but significantly less a.m. peak hour trips than the former land use.”
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
Operations at the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard are considered
acceptable, though there is congestion at this intersection. Recommendations in the study report
regard general traffic congestion in the area. City Staff have discussed these recommendations
and are following up with Hennepin County on evaluating proposed recommendations.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan provides a variety of 13 deciduous canopy trees, 20 evergreen trees, and 44
ornamental trees. There are also 207 deciduous and evergreen shrubs and 345 perennials/grasses.
Many of the plants selected are native species. The plantings are focused along the boulevards,
pedestrian walkways, patios and building foundations. Evergreen and ornamental trees are
proposed along the property line with the residential parcel to the south along with shrubs
screening the parking area along Utica Avenue. The subject property is also providing a six foot
high cedar privacy fence along the residential and alley areas to the south and west. Staff finds
the plan meets the landscaping requirements.
Tree removal is included in the demolition plan. The proposed landscaping plan satisfies the
City’s tree replacement requirements. The five trees that will be kept along the perimeter of the
property will be protected and preserved per City requirements.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The City requires 12% (11,236 sq. ft.) of the lot area to be DORA. The project provides 15%, or
13, 881 sq. ft. DORA includes one of the roof-top decks on each of the three-story buildings, a
landscaped pedestrian connection between Utica Avenue and Wooddale Avenue, a dog exercise
area and five vegetable gardens. Only one of the roof-top decks of each building is being
counted, as one is for private purchase, and the other will remain available for common use by
the other units of that building. The dog area and vegetable gardens are for the exclusive use of
Wooddale Flats residents. The plan exceeds the DORA requirements.
PUD MODIFICATIONS:
The application includes the following PUD modifications:
• Increased Floor Area Ratio from 0.70 to 0.90
• Increased building height for the three-story buildings from 40 feet to 43 feet to the top of the
parapet, and 51 feet to the top of the elevator penthouse.
• Reduce front yard (East) from 30 feet for Bldg. 1 and 43 feet for Bldgs. 2-6 to 15 feet
• Reduce side yard (North) from 35 feet to 20 feet
• Reduce side yard (South) from 23 feet to 14 feet
• Reduce rear yard (West) from 25 feet to 15 feet
• Reduce distance between buildings from 21.5 feet to 13 feet and from 26.5 feet to 17 feet
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OBJECTIVES:
The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the
proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”:
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
The building siting, massing, articulation, orientation, façade entrances, sidewalks connections
and landscape features provide integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project.
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
The site is served by Metro Transit Routes #12, #604, and #615. The plan also provides
enhanced sidewalk access along and across the site.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
3. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD.
The purpose of a travel demand management strategy is to spread the number of automobile
trips throughout the day, reducing the negative impacts that occur during peak travel times.
Generally, office uses generate the greatest peak demand and can most influence these
impacts. This residential development distributes the traffic from the site to different streets
and provides adequate distance between Wooddale Avenue and the nearest driveway
entrances.
4. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter
requirements:
The plan provides 14.8% of the lot area in designed outdoor recreation area (DORA), which
exceeds the 12% minimum requirement.
5. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The development includes a site plan that provides enhanced gathering spaces, sidewalks, a
visually interesting and pedestrian-scale development, and the required class I exterior
building materials on all building elevations.
Staff and the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, with the indicated
modifications, meets the City’s Planned Unit Development objectives, and recommends approval
of the Preliminary and Final PUD.
WOODDALE FLATS PROCESS:
To date, the following meetings have occurred:
• March 12, 2013: Neighborhood Input Meeting-Wolf Lake Professional Center
• April 17, 2013: Neighborhood Input Meeting-Wolf Lake Professional Center
• June 5, 2013: Planning Commission recommends approval of Comprehensive
Plan Amendment at Public Hearing
• August 5, 2013: City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
• September 18, 2013: Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning,
Preliminary and Final Plat, and Preliminary and Final PUD at
Public Hearing
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Excerpt from September 18, 2013
Planning Commission Minutes
2. Rezoning Illustration
3. Current Survey
4. Final Plat
5. Landscape Plan
6. Civil Engineering Plans
a. Site Plan
b. Grading & Drainage Plan
c. Storm Sewer Utility Plan
7. Architectural Plans
a. Two-story Building Elevations
b. Two-story Building Floor Plans
c. Three-story Building Elevations
d. Three-story Building Floor Plans
8. Ordinance for Rezoning
9. Resolution for Preliminary and Final
Plat
10. Resolution for Preliminary and Final
PUD
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
ORDINANCE NO. ___-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS FROM R-2 TO R-4
3998 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH
4017 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 13-32-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December
17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their
existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for
the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
(Area to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Wooddale Flats)
Those parts of the following described property:
Parcel 1:
Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, Lots 37 and 38, Lot 36, except the South 10
feet thereof, all in Block 2, Browndale, according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract Property)
Parcel 2:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the Fourth
Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point
399.96 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of section in center of cross road
extending from Excelsior Avenue in Southeasterly direction
through said section; thence South 34 degrees 12 minutes East
279.62 feet along center line of cross road to point of beginning of
tract to be described; thence continuing along last described line
300 feet; thence South 67 degrees West 191 feet; thence North 34
degrees 12 minutes West on a line parallel with said center line of
cross road to a point drawn Southwesterly from the actual point of
beginning and a right angle to the center line of said cross road;
thence Northeasterly along said right angle line to the actual point
of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property, Certificate No. 84516)
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
And
That portion of the vacated alley in Block 2, “Browndale,” which
lies North of the easterly extension of the North line of Lot 34,
Block 2, “Browndale,” and which lies westerly of a line extending
from a point 7.00 feet easterly from the Southeast corner of Lot 33
in said Block 2, as measured along the easterly extension of the
South line of said Lot 33 and passing through a point equidistant
from the Northeast corner of said Lot 34 and the Northwest corner
of Lot 1 in said Block 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract property)
from R-2 Single Family Residential to R-4 Multiple Family Residential.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 13-32-Z are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading October 7, 2013
Second Reading October 21, 2013
Date of Publication October 31, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect November 15, 2013
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council 21, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
WOODDALE FLATS
WITH VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR
REDUCTION IN UTILITY EASEMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Wooddale Flats, LLC, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as
Wooddale Flats has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said
subdivision with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for a reduction in the width of utility
easement provided (Section 26-154) from 5.0 feet to 0.0 feet along the perimeter of the alley
turn-around on the southwest portion of the property in the manner required for platting of land
under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
Parcel 1:
Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, Lots 37 and 38, Lot 36, except the South 10
feet thereof, all in Block 2, Browndale, according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract Property)
Parcel 2:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the Fourth
Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point
399.96 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of section in center of cross road
extending from Excelsior Avenue in Southeasterly direction
through said section; thence South 34 degrees 12 minutes East
279.62 feet along center line of cross road to point of beginning of
tract to be described; thence continuing along last described line
300 feet; thence South 67 degrees West 191 feet; thence North 34
degrees 12 minutes West on a line parallel with said center line of
cross road to a point drawn Southwesterly from the actual point of
beginning and a right angle to the center line of said cross road;
thence Northeasterly along said right angle line to the actual point
of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property, Certificate No. 84516)
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
And
That portion of the vacated alley in Block 2, “Browndale,” which
lies North of the easterly extension of the North line of Lot 34,
Block 2, “Browndale,” and which lies westerly of a line extending
from a point 7.00 feet easterly from the Southeast corner of Lot 33
in said Block 2, as measured along the easterly extension of the
South line of said Lot 33 and passing through a point equidistant
from the Northeast corner of said Lot 34 and the Northwest corner
of Lot 1 in said Block 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract property)
4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the applicant/owner of
the reasonable use of the land. Such circumstances arise due to site topography and the
dedication of right-of-way to the City.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The
granting of the variance will enable a 0.0 foot utility easement along the perimeter of the all turn-
around on the southwest portion of the property.
6. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for such lands to be redeveloped and to include certain elements, such
as a pedestrian oriented environment and life-cycle housing. Such redevelopment could not
occur without a variance.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Wooddale Flats is hereby approved
and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and
regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided,
however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification
by the City Clerk subject to the following conditions:
a. A variance is approved from the subdivision ordinance for a 0.0 foot utility
easement around the perimeter of the alley turn-around on the southwest portion
of the property from a 5.0 foot utility easement required by City Code, Section
26-154, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of
the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk.
b. Park dedication and trail dedication fees, totaling $49,500 and $7,425
respectively, shall be paid to the City prior to the City signing the final plat.
c. A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount
of $5,000 shall be submitted to the City, prior to the City signing the Final Plat, to
insure the following:
i. A signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City
ii. Iron monuments are installed marking the lot corners
iii. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution
to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts
required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on
behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph
No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled.
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required
under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of
proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above
described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE FOR WOODDALE FLATS
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was
received on August 12, 2013 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the Preliminary and Final PUD was mailed to
all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property plus other affected property owners
in the vicinity, and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the Preliminary and Final PUD was published
in the St. Louis Park Sailor on September 5, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the meeting of
September 18, 2013 and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD at the
meeting of September 18, 2013, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and
Final PUD on a 4-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Wooddale Flats, LLC has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit
Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the R-4
Multiple-Family Residence district located at 4017 Utica Avenue and 3998 Wooddale Avenue
for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
(Area to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Wooddale Flats)
Parcel 1:
Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, Lots 37 and 38, Lot 36, except the South 10
feet thereof, all in Block 2, Browndale, according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract Property)
Parcel 2:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the Fourth
Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point
399.96 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
of the Northwest Quarter of section in center of cross road
extending from Excelsior Avenue in Southeasterly direction
through said section; thence South 34 degrees 12 minutes East
279.62 feet along center line of cross road to point of beginning of
tract to be described; thence continuing along last described line
300 feet; thence South 67 degrees West 191 feet; thence North 34
degrees 12 minutes West on a line parallel with said center line of
cross road to a point drawn Southwesterly from the actual point of
beginning and a right angle to the center line of said cross road;
thence Northeasterly along said right angle line to the actual point
of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property, Certificate No. 84516)
And
That portion of the vacated alley in Block 2, “Browndale,” which
lies North of the easterly extension of the North line of Lot 34,
Block 2, “Browndale,” and which lies westerly of a line extending
from a point 7.00 feet easterly from the Southeast corner of Lot 33
in said Block 2, as measured along the easterly extension of the
South line of said Lot 33 and passing through a point equidistant
from the Northeast corner of said Lot 34 and the Northwest corner
of Lot 1 in said Block 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract property)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 13-34-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and
welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the
effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive
Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). The specific modifications
include:
a. Increased Floor Area Ratio from 0.70 to 0.90.
b. Increased building height for the three-story buildings from 40 feet to 43 feet to
the top of the parapet, and 51 feet to the top of the elevator penthouse.
c. Reduce front yard (East) from 30 feet for Bldg. 1 and 43 feet for Bldgs. 2-6 to 15
feet for all buildings
d. Reduce side yard (North) from 35 feet to 20 feet
e. Reduce side yard (South) from 23 feet to 14 feet
f. Reduce rear yard (West) from 25 feet to 15 feet
g. Reduce distance between buildings 1 and 2 from 21.5 feet to 13 feet and between
each of buildings 2 – 6 from 26.5 feet to 17 feet
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
4. The contents of Planning Case File 13-34-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved
based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval is subject to City Council approval of the rezoning of the subject property
to R-4 Multiple Family residence district and the effective date of the ordinance.
2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official
Exhibits.
3. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities (excluding building demolition), the
following conditions shall be met:
a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City.
b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant and property
owner.
c. A Soil Analysis Report of fill material must be submitted to the City.
d. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction, private utility, and City representatives.
e. An Erosion Control Permit must be obtained.
f. An MCES permit approving a sanitary connection to MCES main lines in
Wooddale Avenue must be obtained.
g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permits must be obtained.
h. All other necessary permits must be obtained.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits:
a. The developer shall sign the City’s Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
b. Final plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities and construction documents conform to the
requirements of the City Code of Ordinances and City policies.
c. Building material samples and colors must be submitted to the City for review.
d. The developer shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter
of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public and private sidewalk
installation, repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, storm water management
system, landscaping and irrigation, and designed outdoor recreation area features.
e. A maintenance agreement for the storm water system must be executed and
signed by the City and developer.
f. The City and developer shall enter into a development agreement.
5. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Friday, and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends.
b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighborhood
properties.
c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public
street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the
Director of Public Works that appropriate safety measures have been taken to
ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
6. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the following shall
be completed:
a. Public and private sidewalks, landscaping, and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with the Official Exhibits.
7. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be
buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be 100% screened from off-site.
8. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee
of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
9. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution
of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final PUD. The
development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems
appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the
development agreement.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 18, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Larry Shapiro, Charlie Dixon (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT:
3. Public Hearings
A. Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Plat and Planned Unit Development
Location: 3998 Wooddale Avenue South and 4017 Utica Avenue
Applicant: Wooddale Flats, LLC
Case Nos. 13-32-Z, 13-33-S, 13-34-PUD
Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Carper asked if on-street parking would be permitted on Wooddale, Utica
or Toledo Ave.
Mr. Kelley responded that on-street parking would be allowed where it currently is
allowed.
Commissioner Person asked if the city plows the alley and the turnaround.
Mr. Kelley said that the city currently maintains the alley. He stated that this has been
discussed with Engineering staff. A revision has been made to the plan to move the fence
back in that area, along the turnaround, to allow for some snow storage.
Chair Robertson asked if there were any gates in the fence where parking is covered by
the easement for the adjacent building.
Mr. Kelley said he didn’t believe there were any gates in the fence. He added that access
from the parking lot to the street would need to exit out the drive. The developer, Mr.
Carlson indicated he would add a gate in this area. Mr. Kelley said it can be noted on the
plan to have a gate at the parking easement.
Commissioner Carper asked if any permeable surfaces will be used in the parking areas
or drives to lessen runoff.
Mr. Kelley said there was no indication or discussion of using permeable pavers. He
stated that the site currently has no water discharge because it is bowl shaped. The project
will be required to completely hold a 100-year event on-site which would filter through
the underground systems.
Commissioner Person commented that the trip generation estimates seemed a little low
for 33 units.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave
Matt Pacyna, SRF traffic consultant, remarked that the information is based on the IT
Trip Generation Rates and handbook which is the industry standard. It reflects that
schedules in and out vary for individual townhome residents.
David Carlson, applicant, Gatehouse Properties Ltd., said 13 of the units have been
reserved. He spoke about discussions with Harvey Meyer, 4044 Toledo Ave. S., about the
fence and landscaping. He said Mr. Meyer is concerned about the dog run. Mr. Carlson
said it would be a private dog park for the condominium only.
Commissioner Carper said he recommended that energy efficient lighting be used on the
exterior of the building.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Harvey Meyer, 4044 Toledo Ave. S., said he has attended all the meetings concerning the
development. He liked the initial site plan. He appreciates the green space and buffer
between the development and the neighborhood. He stated that the initial site plan did
not have plans for a dog run. He just received a copy of the latest site plan today. He said
he is concerned about noise from the dog run and his property values. Mr. Meyer
commented that dogs from a condominium will probably be smaller dogs; and smaller
dogs often bark more, especially off-leash.
Mr. Meyer said he looked at a dog area in the Uptown area for comparison. It is an
enclosed area which faces a parking lot. He also looked at a 128 unit condominium
building in the near north area of Mpls. which has a dog area of 8 x 18 ft. He said the
proposed dog run at Wooddale Flats is bigger than that and he is concerned about noise
as the dogs will be off-leash. He suggested the dog area be made smaller to minimize
noise concerns.
Mr. Meyer said he doesn’t have anything against the project. He said the addition of 33
units will mean a massive change to that landscape, he and his neighbors will be subject
to many months of construction, and they are already enduring a lot for the development.
He was pleased with the initial site plan which had a green space which is now replaced
with a dog run. He suggested that the area proposed for 5 vegetable garden areas could
be used for a dog area.
Chair Robertson said he suggested a wait and see approach. He spoke about city noise
ordinances which are in place. He added that the proposed dog run is enclosed which is
an advantage to an open green space which anyone might use for dogs. Chair Robertson
said Mr. Meyer’s concerns were something to take into consideration, but he was not
comfortable making them part of the conditions. He said the developer has heard Mr.
Meyer’s concerns. He added that he thinks giving dogs room to run off-leash may
actually minimize barking.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Person made a motion to recommend approval of rezoning, preliminary
and final plat with variance and conditions, and preliminary and final planned unit
development with modifications and conditions for Wooddale Flats. Commissioner
Morris seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
Wooddale Flats: Zoning District - Existing
0 125 250 375 50062.5
Feet
Excelsior
Blvd
Wo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Utica AveHwy 10040th StToledo Ave41st St Quentin AveMiracle Mile Shopping
Center
Ü
Legend
Zoning District
POS - Parks & Open Space
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two-Family Residential
R4 - Multiple-Family Residential
RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
BP - Business Park
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 21
Wooddale Flats: Zoning District - Proposed
0 125 250 375 50062.5
Feet
Excelsior
Blvd
Wo
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Utica AveHwy 10040th StToledo Ave41st St Quentin AveMiracle Mile Shopping
Center
Ü
Legend
Zoning District
POS - Parks & Open Space
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two-Family Residential
R4 - Multiple-Family Residential
RC - High-Density Multiple-Family Residential
MX - Mixed Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
BP - Business Park
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 22
17.3
12.7
15.3
13.1
22.6
30.1
5.7
63.2
9.9
19.3
11.0
20.6
21.3 11.7
5.3
10.314.2 21.1
9.825.8
18.230.8
1.116.2
1.093.72.11.00.70.72.1
5.7
13.1
8.010.0
22.06.4
11.018.0
11.020.011.45.0 20.03.5 20.632.1
11.04.1
13.0
52.46.824.3 17.26
(
33.64
6
:6
(
6
:
1
:NORTH 80.001
( 11.45
1
:40.211
(1
:NORTH 198.2139.626
(
1
(
1
:
15.59
1
:43.59NORTH 7.73
P A R C E L 2
P A R C E L 1
F:\survey\browndale - hennepin\1-4-2\B-1-4-2fb106522inv81045.dwg
Legend of Symbols & Abbreviations
Vicinity Map
( N o t t o S c a l e )
Basis for
bearings is
assumed
ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
15950 Portico Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
Legal Description
Note Corresponding to Schedule B, Part II
File No.
Current Zoning Information
Source of Information:
Address:
Phone:
Planning Dept, City of St. Louis Park, MN
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(952) 924-2500
Zoning District(s):
Zoning Definition:
R-2
Single Family Residential
Building Setback Requirements R-2
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Observed Required Notes
Parking Tabulation
Observed Required Notes
Regular Spaces
Handicapped Spaces
Total Parking Spaces
Maximum Height
Bulk Restrictions
Lot Area
Coverage Ratio
Other:
Observed Required Notes
Height Restrictions
Observed Max. Allowed Notes
see survey
see note
2*
see note
45.2 feet
105493 Sq. Ft.
0%
N/A
25 Feet
7/5 Feet
63*
see note
65*
30 feet
7200 Sq. Ft.
0%
N/A
30' or three stories whichever is less
N/A
NOTE: Because there may be a need for further interpretation of the applicable zoning codes,
we refer you to the above referenced municipality and the applicable zoning codes.
25 Feet
F.B. No. 1065-22 inv. 81133
Prepared by:
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
Property Address: 3998 Woodale, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
PID No. : 07-028-24-23-0059
Property Address: 4017 Utica, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
PID No. : 07-028-24-23-0057
Area of Parcel = 105493 sq.ft (2.42 acres)
Side setback: 7' on one side with 5'
on other dependent if a garage is
attached. See City Code for other
items.
Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant west side of Wooddale Ave opposite W. 40th St.
Elevation = 916.37 feet
Above ground utility locations have been field located as shown. All underground utility services
which serve the property have attempted to be field located through the services of Gopher State
One Call per ticket number 130670262. However some of the utility companies failed to field locate
underground utility locations. In those cases, utilities as shown are from available survey maps.
Further information contact Gopher State One Call (651-454-0002 or 811)
Parking requirements dependent on
use of property and floor area.
See City Code for other items.
The Gregory Group, Inc. d.b.a.
Lot Surveys Company
7601 73rd Avenue N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
phone 763-560-3093
fax 763-560-3522
Property is in Flood Zone "X" (area of minimal flooding) per FEMA panel map
number 27053C0361E, dated September 2, 2004.
The undersigned, being a registered surveyor of the State of Minnesota, certifies to Stewart Title
Guaranty Company, agent for Land Title, Inc. as follows:
This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in
accordance with the 2011 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title
Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA, and NSPS in 2011, and includes
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(b), 7(a), 8, and 11(b) of Table A thereof.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2013.
Signed: ____________________________________________
Gregory R. Prasch Registration No. 24992
Parcel 1:
Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, Lots 37 and 38, Lot 36, except the South 10 feet thereof, all in Block 2, Browndale, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract Property)
Parcel 2:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of
the Fourth Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point 399.96 feet East of the Southwest
corner of the Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter of section in center of cross road extending from Excelsior
Avenue in Southeasterly direction through said section; thence South 34 degrees 12 minutes East 279.62 feet
along center line of cross road to point of beginning of tract to be described; thence continuing along last described
line 300 feet; thence South 67 degrees West 191 feet; thence North 34 degrees 12 minutes West on a line parallel
with said center line of cross road to a point drawn Southwesterly from the actual point of beginning and a right
angle to the center line of said cross road; thence Northeasterly along said right angle line to the actual point of
beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property, Certificate No. 84516)
And
That portion of the vacated alley in Block 2, "Browndale," which lies North of the easterly extension of the North line
of Lot 34, Block 2, "Browndale," and which lies westerly of a line extending from a point 7.00 feet easterly from the
Southeast corner of Lot 33 in said Block 2, as measured along the easterly extension of the South line of said Lot
33 and passing through a point equidistant from the Northeast corner of said Lot 34 and the Northwest corner of Lot
1 in said Block 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Abstract property)
BROWNDALE
Heavy snow and ice cover at time of survey.
Side Street Setback 15 Feet
*Parking spaces per aerial photo.
Legal description and easements per title commitment from Stewart Title
Guaranty Company, issued by its agent Land Title Inc., Case No. 398678 dated
February 15, 2013.
Items 1 and 2 - Not a survey issue.
Item 3 - Encroachments as shown hereon.
Items 4 thru 11 - Not a survey issue or not to our knowledge.
Item 12 - Easement for Alley per doc. no. 2257824 as shown hereon.
see survey
see survey
see surveysi
te
A gap exists between the northeasterly lot lines of Lots 35 thru38, Block 2 of the plat of
Browndale and the southwesterly line of Parcel 2.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 23
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 24
(2) SWAMP WHITE OAK
2.5" CAL.
(3) PINES TO REMAIN
IRRIGATED SOD BLVD.
(8) SPRUCE 'BLACK HILLS', 8' HGT.
(4) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW', 2.5" CAL.
(6) LILAC 'PRAIRIE PETITE' #5
3-4' HGT.
(10) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING
SNOW', 2.5" CAL.
(4) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE #5
(22) DAYLILY #1
(4) JUNIPER 'GREY
OWL #5(4) HAWTHORN, #25
(27) SPIREA 'ANTHONY
WATERER' #5, 3-4' HGT
(1) PINE TO REMAIN
(15) DAYLILY #1
(34) RUDBECKIA
'GOLDSTURM' #1
(37) LITTLE BLUESTEM
'BLUE HEAVEN' #1
(34) YARROW
'PAPRIKA' #1
(4) CRABAPPLE 'LOUISA' #25
(2) RIVER BIRCH, 2.5" CAL.
(9) HYDRANGEA 'ANNABELLE'
#5
(4) WEIGELA 'TANGO' #5
(4) WEIGELA 'TANGO' #5
(4) WEIGELA 'TANGO' #5
(4) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND' #5
(4) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND' #5
(4) SPIREA 'SNOWMOUND' #5
(6) TAUNTON YEW #5
(6) TAUNTON YEW #5
(6) TAUNTON YEW #5
(6) GLOBE ARB. #5
(6) GLOBE ARB. #5
(6) GLOBE ARB. #5
(8) LITTLE BLUESTEM #1
(8) LITTLE BLUESTEM #1
(8) LITTLE BLUESTEM #1
(8) PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1
(8) PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1
(8) PRAIRIE DROPSEED #1
(2) FRINGETREE
#25
PARKING LOT SCREEN
PLANTINGS
PARKING LOT SCREEN
PLANTINGS
6' HGT CEDAR
PRIVACY FENCE
DOG RUN, W/ WOOD
MULCH & 48" HGT.
VINYL COATED CHAIN
LINK FENCE
(2) CONCOLOR FIR, 8' HGT.
(10) SPRUCE 'BLACK HILLS'
, 8' HGT.
(16) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL' #5
(3) JAP. TREE LILAC #25
(3) JAP. TREE LILAC #25
(3) JAP. TREE LILAC #25
(3) JAP. TREE LILAC #25
(3) JAP. TREE LILAC #25
(4) GLOBE ARB. #5
(16) TIGERLILY #1
(16) TIGERLILY #1
(16) DAYLILY #1
(16) DAYLILY #1
(16) TIGERLILY #1
(16) TIGERLILY #1
(16) DAYLILY #1
(16) DAYLILY #1
(3) JAP. TREE LILAC #25
(4) HYDRANGEA
'ANNABELLE' #5
TRAP ROCK MULCH
W/ STEEL EDGING
IRRIGATED SOD BOULEVARD
IRRIGATED SOD BOULEVARD
IRRIGATED SOD BOULEVARD
IRRIGATED SOD BOULEVARD
(9) HONEYLOCUST 'SKYLINE'
2.5" BB.
TRAP ROCK MULCH
W/ STEEL EDGING
(2) CRABAPPLE 'SPRING SNOW'
2.5" BB
EXTG. GRAVEL TURNAROUND
TO REMAIN
6' HGT CEDAR
PRIVACY FENCE
6' HGT CEDAR
PRIVACY FENCE
(16) DAYLILY #1
(16) DAYLILY #1
(16) TIGERLILY #1
(16) TIGERLILY #1
IRRIGATED SOD
IRRIGATED SOD
IRRIGATED SOD
GROSS BLDG FLOOR AREA= 27,085 SF
REQUIRED BOULEVARD TREES, (1) PER BLDG UNIT= 12
BOULEVARD TREES SHOWN ON PLAN= 13
REQUIRED SHRUBS, (6) PER 50 LF OF SITE PERIMETER (1577) LF= 189
SHRUBS SHOWN ON PLAN= 189
(6) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE. #5
(6) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE. #5
(6) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE. #5
(6) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE. #5
(6) BUSH HONEYSUCKLE. #5
(5) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL' #5
(5) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL' #5
(5) JUNIPER 'GREY OWL' #5
(5) JUNIPER
'GREY OWL' #5
(5) JUNIPER
'GREY OWL' #5
VEG. GARDEN
VEG. GARDEN
VEG. GARDEN
VEG. GARDEN
VEG. GARDEN
(6) TAUNTON YEW
(3) TAUNTON YEW
(3) TAUNTON YEW
(6) TAUNTON YEW
PRUNE EXTG. ARBORVITAE
HEDGE
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
BETWEEN UTICA AV AND WOODDALE AV
4979 SF
DOG RUN WITH DECORATIVE FENCING
AND LANDSCAPING. 2940 SF
(5) VEGETABLE GARDEN PLOTS
1750 SF
D.O.R.A SPACE REQUIREMENTS
GROSS LOT AREA= 93,638 SF
12% GROSS LOT AREA= 11,236 SF
ROOF DECKS= 4212 SF
DOG RUN= 2940 SF
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION, UTICA AV TO WOODDALE AV= 4979 SF
VEGETABLE GARDENS= 1750 SF
TOTAL= 13,881 SF
(5) ROOF DECKS
4212 SF
TREE TO BE REMOVED, TYP.
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.12.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-11-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
BEN ERICKSON
REGISTRATION NO: 50130
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
b.e. landscape designs
2010 3rd st ne
mpls, mn 55418
612-382-0902
ben@belanddesigns.com
www.belanddesigns.com
NOTES:
1. LOCATE FLARE OF TRUNK PRIOR TO EXCAVATING
PLANTING PIT. REMOVE ROOTBALL SOIL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE.
2 AFTER SETTING ROOTBALL IN PLANTING PIT, REMOVE ALL
NON-BIODEGRABLE WRAP MATERIAL AND/OR CORD. BACKFILL
PIT TO 1
2 DEPTH AND WATER THOROUGHLY. CUT AND REMOVE AT
MINIMUM TOP 1
3 OF BURLAP AND TWINE. COMPLETE BACKFILLING
AND WATER UNTIL SATURATED. MULCH TO 4" DEPTH ON DAY OF
PLANTING.
3. GUY ASSEMBLY IS OPTIONAL, HOWEVER CONTRACTOR SHALL
ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING TREE IN UPRIGHT
POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD.
4. AFTER INSTALLATION, TRIM OUT DEAD OR DEFORMED
MATERIAL. DO NOT PRUNE CENTRAL LEADER.
OPTIONAL- GUY WIRES SHALL BE 1
8" DIA. GALV. STEEL
CABLE. WIRES SHALL ATTACH TO 2" WIDE MIN. NYLON
MESH SLINGS AROUND TREE TRUNK. SLINGS SHALL BE
PLACED A MIN. OF 2
3 UP TRUNK OF TREE.
GUY WIRES SHALL BE SET INTO GROUND WITH DUCK-BILL
EARTH ANCHOR OR APPROVED EQUAL.
PLANTING PIT SHALL BE TWICE THE
WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF
PLANTING PIT.
EXISTING NATIVE SOILS
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
STAKING:
GUY ASSEMBLY NOT MANDATORY BUT, CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREE IN A
PLUMB POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD.
NOTES:
1) CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE WITH PIN THE ROOT FLARE OF EACH TREE PRIOR TO
DIGGING THE PLANTING PIT. (THE FLARE IS THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE MAIN
STEM AND THE ROOT SYSTEM.)
2) REMOVE SOIL FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. TREES WITH MORE
THAN 2" OF EXCESS SOIL ABOVE THE FLARE WILL BE REJECTED. MEASURE DISTANCE
BETWEEN FLARE AND BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL. SUBTRACT 10% TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF
PLANTING PIT.
3) DIG PIT TO DEPTH DETERMINED ABOVE. PIT SHALL BE DISHED WITH SIDEWALLS AS
SHOWN BELOW. SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM OF PIT.
4.) SET TREE IN PIT SO THAT FLARE IS ONE-TWO INCHES ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE.
5) IN ALL AREAS WITH HEAVY CLAY OR POORLY DRAINED SOILS (MOTTLING), CONTACT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREE MAY BE RELOCATED OR ROOTBALL FURTHER ELEVATED.
TREES WITH BE REJECTED FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
-POOR FORM
-DAMAGED TRUNK
-BURIED ROOT FLARES
-ENCIRCLING TRANSPORT ROOTS
-UNCONSOLIDATED ROOTBALL SOIL (DUE TO
EXCESSIVE HANDLING)
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE
INSPECTION BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48
HOURS PRIOR TO PLACING MULCH AROUND THE
TREE PLANTINGS.
AFTER SETTING ROOT BALL IN PIT, BACKFILL TO WITHIN
12" OF TOP OF ROOTBALL AND SATURATE WITH WATER.
-CUT AND REMOVE TO BACKFILL LINE ALL TWINE, WIRE AND/OR BURLAP.
-BACKFILL UNTIL PIT IS FULL, WATER AGAIN.
BACKFILL WITH 1/2 NATIVE SOILS AND 1/2 PLANTING SOIL.
MIX THOROUGHLY. SEE SPEC.
'DARK' SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH - 3" DEPTH X 5 FT DIAMETER
PULL AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREE
RODENT TRUNK PROTECTION: CORRUGATED POLYETHYENE DRAINAGE
PIPE SLIT VERTICALLY OR 1/2" HARDWIRE-CLOTH MESH CYLINDER.
DIMENSIONS: 4" DIAMETER (OR GREATER) X 36" HGT. SEE SPECIFICATIONAFTER INSTALLATION, TRIM OUT DEADWOOD
AND/OR DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT LEADER.
STAKES AND GUY WIRES -
SEE NOTES BELOW
FLARE, SET AT 1"-2" ABOVE SURROUNDING
GRADE. SEE NOTE ABOVE
DISH PLANTING PIT. SCARIFY
BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PIT
UNDISTURBED SOIL OR
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
TRIM OUT BROKEN & DEAD STEMS ONLY.
SPACE PLANTS ACCORDING TO PLANT SCHEDULE.
PLANTING SOIL ( 1
3 MNDOT 3877-2
SELECT BORROW TOPSOIL+ 1
3 COMPOST
+ 1
3 CLEAN WASHED SAND). SEE SPEC.
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES
OF PLANTING HOLE.
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS.
3" DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH. PULL MULCH AWAY FROM
STEMS OF PLANTS TO PREVENT
ROTTING.
PULL MULCH AWAY FROM ALL
STEMS TO PREVENT ROTTING.
TRIM OUT BROKEN & DEAD
STEMS ONLY.
3" DEPTH, DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH.
FINISHED GRADE
PLANTING SOIL. SEE SPEC.
SCARIFIY BOTTOM AND SIDES
OF PLANTING HOLE.
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L100
SECTION 32 84 23 DESIGN/BUILD IRRIGATION SYSTEM
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 25
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SITE DESIGN KEY NOTES PLAN NOTES: SURVEY DATASITE DATA: DEVELOPMENT DATA: LEGEND:DISTRICT REGULATIONS: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 26
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SITE DESIGN SURVEY DATALIGHT DUTYHEAVY DUTYCONCRETE PAVEMENT - SIDEWALKBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE PAVEMENT - HEAVY DUTY LEGEND:INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 27
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SITE DESIGN SURVEY DATA LEGEND:INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a) Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 28
1053 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
GLASS = 296 SQ.FT.
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)
11
13
19
11
1
7
11
18
15
1
7
5
12
4
2
15
7
10
14
7
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
2149 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
TOTAL = 638 SF / 1053 SF = 61%
BRICK = 704 SQ.FT.
GLASS = 362 SQ.FT.
11
7
18
10
7
12
11
9
5
14
9
713 5 4
4
13
10 810
2
4
1
13
11
15
4
4
BRICK = 300 SQ.FT.
1
9
TOTAL = 1435 SF / 2149 SF = 68%
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
1
15
1
11
8
9
06
STUCCO = 116 SQ.FT.
77
4
10
1
5
1 33'-1"26'-6"33'-1"24'-612"CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 368 SF
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL =0 SF =10%
STONE = 42 SQ.FT.
CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 653 SF
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL =214 SF =10%
STONE = 39 SQ.FT.
A200
BUILDING #1 ELEVATIONS
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
A200
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EAST ELEVATION
A200
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 29
1349 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
GLASS = 72 SQ.FT.
BRICK = 405 SQ.FT.
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
2088 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
TOTAL = 818 SF / 1053 SF = 78%
GLASS = 223 SQ.FT.
BRICK = 692 SQ.FT.
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)
TOTAL = 1,270 SF / 2088 SF = 61%
STUCCO = 207 SQ.FT.
STUCCO = 135 SQ.FT.
1
11
13
11
15
4
6
6
18
1
11
13
4
7
6
7
15
12
9
12 7
77
1111
5 11
1 33'-5"26'-212"33'-1"24'-10"CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 687 SF
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL =208 SF =10%
STONE = 12 SQ.FT.
CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 98 SF
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL = 134 SF =10%
A201
BUILDING #1 ELEVATIONS
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1/4"=1'-0"
1 NORTH FACING ELEVATION
A201
1/4"=1'-0"
2 WEST FACING ELEVATION
A201
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 30
12'-0" X 15'-0"BEDROOM 212'-8" x 12'-2"GREAT ROOM18'-1" x 28'-2"GREAT ROOMMASTER BEDROOM15'-2" x 15'-8"18'-0" x 28'-2"BATHLAUNDRY5'-4" x 11'-4"CLOSET10'-10" x 7'-6"6'-5" x 8'-5"L.FPP.DWR.OPTIONAL
P.FPR.DWOPTIONALCALHOUN SINGLE LEVEL
CEDAR SINGLE LEVELW/DDECK17'-6" x 5'-3"BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"L.WINE /PANTRYWINE /PANTRYF.W.H.GARAGE
30'-0" x 22'-0"BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"W/DF.W.H.BATH
5'-4" x 11'-4"
L.14'-0" x 13'-1"MASTER BEDROOM1102 GSF
BEDROOM 23'-6"3'-6"3'-913
16"
TYPE 'A' ACCESIBLE
FIRST FLOOR AREA = 4527 GSF
GARAGE = 1102 GSF
UPPER UNIT = 4105 GSF
CALHOUN = 1380 GSF
CEDAR UNIT= 1548 GSF
BUILDING / UNIT AREAS
TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 8,752 GSF
HVAC UNITS
A100
BUILDING #1 FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A100
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 31
MASTER BEDROOM15'-2" x 15'-8"BATH5'-4" x 11'-4"CLOSET17'-1" x 7'-6"W.H.'CABIN'18'-0" x 13'-1"W/D
F.WORKOUT ROOM14'-4" x 13'-6"DINING14'-1" X 14'-9"BEDROOM12'-0" X 17'-7"MUDROOM
8'-9" x 11'-9"WORK AREA10'-2" X 11'-8"GREAT ROOM18'-0" x 28'-2"DWR.
W/D
STORAGE10'-0"x 19'-0"BATH
5'-4" x 11'-4"
L.
F.DECK22'-7" X 10'-10"STOR.38'-0"11'-0"11'-0"8'-0"3'-10"10'-0"10'-2"
24'-0"16'-4"25'-8"7'-0"2'-8"23'-8"
5'-5"1'-6"7'-8"3'-3"7'-0"2'-7"7'-0"11'-8"3'-2"
7'-4"
24'-8"
99'-4"
39'-4"25'-8"
8'-4"3'-4"8'-0"1'-6"8'-8"7'-8"
WO 7'-0"47'-4"7'-4"7'-0"11'-0"2'-0"11'-0"2'-0"'PORCH'6'-5" X 17'-0"DECK6'-2" X 16'-0"GAS CAB. BELOWCAB. BELOWCAB. THIS SIDETOWEL RACKSOPEN 18" SHELVESBENCH
R.
3 SHELVES
BELOW CTR.
1 SHELVES
BELOW CTR.
'CUBBIES'R.S.5'-8"5'-8"8'-8"
AREA
OF
REFUGE
AREA
OF
REFUGE
UPPER UNIT = 4105 GSF
BUILDING / UNIT AREAS
A101
BUILDING #1
SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A101
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 32
WINDOW WELL WHERE
NEEDED SEE SITE PLAN
14
19
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)
4673 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
BRICK = 763 SQ.FT.
GLASS = 428 SQ.FT.
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
TOTAL = 2968 SF / 4673 SF = 64%
STUCCO = - 1,267 SQ.FT.
5
13
8
9
8
1
2
2
33
1
1
11
8
6
11
4
6
88
6
77 7
7 11
6
4'-8" VARIES9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"ROOF BEARING
141'-6 3/4"
THIRD FLOOR
132'-5 5/8"
SECOND FLOOR
121'-7 3/4"
FIRST FLOOR
110'-9 7/8"
LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. FOOTING
EL. VARIES
33'-10"22'-05
8"25'-81
2"42'-6"3'-6"48'-2"STONE = 43 SQ.FT.
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL =467 SF =10%
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 1517 SF
CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
RTU SCREEN
2'-10"51'-0"MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)
2165 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
BRICK = 720 SQ.FT.
GLASS = 551 SQ.FT.
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
TOTAL = 1536 SF / 2165 SF = 71%
STUCCO = 180 SQ.FT.
11
13
19
1
7
5
3
44422
6
16
6
7
2
14
19
12
4
6
1
2
9
1
7
8
6
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 461 SF
4'-8" VARIES9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"ROOF BEARING
141'-6 3/4"
THIRD FLOOR
132'-5 5/8"
SECOND FLOOR
121'-7 3/4"
FIRST FLOOR
110'-9 7/8"
LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
42'-6"48'-2"STONE = 85 SQ.FT.
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL = 0 SF = 0%
CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
A202
BUILDING #2 ELEVATIONS
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
3/16"=1'-0"
1 SOUTH ELEVATION (AT BUILDINGS 2,4,AND 5) NORTH ELEVATION AT BUIDLINGS 3 AND 6 SAME REVERSED.
A202
3/16"=1'-0"
2 EAST ELEVATION
A202
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 33
WINDOW WELL
WHERE NEEDED
SEE SITE PLAN
14
19
8
5
13
8
9
1
1
2
7
4698 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
2
33
1
1
1
8
6
11
4
6
8
676
3 7
BRICK = 763 SQ.FT.
GLASS = 407 SQ.FT.
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
TOTAL = 2,883 SF / 4698 SF = 61%
STUCCO = 1201 SQ.FT.
4
6
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)4'-8" VARIES9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"ROOF BEARING
141'-6 3/4"
THIRD FLOOR
132'-5 5/8"
SECOND FLOOR
121'-7 3/4"
FIRST FLOOR
110'-9 7/8"
LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. FOOTING
EL. VARIES
10'-11"4'-8" VARIES9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"ROOF BEARING
141'-6 3/4"
THIRD FLOOR
132'-5 5/8"
SECOND FLOOR
121'-7 3/4"
FIRST FLOOR
110'-9 7/8"
LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. FOOTING
EL. VARIES
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL =469 SF =10%
STONE = 43 SQ.FT.
CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 1217 SF
12
11
7
11
6
3
-
-
11
6
10
7
STUCCO = 895 SQ.FT.
2165 TOTAL SQ.FT. THIS ELEVATION
BRICK = - SQ.FT.
GLASS = 228 SQ.FT.
TOTAL = 1339 SF / 2245 SF = 60%
CLASS I MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
6
MATERIAL INDEX
PREFIN. METAL FLASHING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
*ALL MATERIAL BREAKS @ INSIDE CORNERS, SEE
PLANS FOR ALL MATERIAL RETURNS. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS PER MFR. RECOMENDATIONS
DECORATIVE CMU / ROCK FACE BLOCK
(COLOR: TOFFEE)
SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER
COLOR TBD
FIBER CEMENT SIDING (4" LAP, 5
16" THICK)
(COLOR: TBD)
VINYL WINDOWS
(COLOR: WHITE)
KASOTA STONE SILL
(COLOR: AMBER BLEND VEINE)
BRICK #1
THIRD RUNNING BOND GROUT - TBD
FIBER CEMENT PANEL (SMOOTH FINISH)
(COLOR: TBD)
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM RAILING
(COLOR: MEDIUM BRONZE)
WOOD TRELLIS
(COLOR: TBD)
ASPHALT SHINGLES
(COLOR: TBD)
METAL ROOFING
(COLOR: TBD)
BRICK #2 - ACCENT
SOLDIER COURSE GROUT - TBD
STUCCO
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM A
(COLOR: TBD)
FIBER CEMENT TRIM B
(COLOR: TBD)
WOOD BRACKETS
(COLOR: TBD)
DECORATIVE LOUVER
(COLOR: TBD)
WRAPPED WOOD COLUMN W/ TRIM
(COLOR: TBD)4'-8" VARIES9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"9'-118"1'-834"ROOF BEARING
141'-6 3/4"
THIRD FLOOR
132'-5 5/8"
SECOND FLOOR
121'-7 3/4"
FIRST FLOOR
110'-9 7/8"
LOWER LEVEL
100'-0"
10'-11"CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING USED AS
CLASS I MATERIAL =216 SF =10%
CLASS II MATERIALS CALCULATIONS
CEMENT BOARD LAPSIDING = 776 SF
STONE = - SQ.FT.
A203
BUILDING #2 ELEVATIONS
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
3/16"=1'-0"
1 NORTH ELEVATION (AT BUILDINGS 2,4,AND 5) SOUTH ELEVATION AT BUIDLINGS 3 AND 6 SAME REVERSED.
A203
3/16"=1'-0"
2 WEST ELEVATION (REVERSED AT BUILDING 3 AND 6)
A203
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 34
F.W.H.
AREA BELOW STAIRFAMILY ROOMFAMILY / REC. ROOM18'-0" x 15'-6"11'-6" x 13'-2"18'-0" x 28'-1"BEDROOM 316'-0" x 12'-2"BEDROOM 311'-6" x 10'-1"GARAGEBEDROOM 221'-0" x 22'-0"GARAGE21'-0" x 44'-0"EL. LOBBYSTORAGECALHOUN UNIT (LOWER)
CEDAR UNIT (LOWER)BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"L.L.F.W.H.MECHSTORAGE5'-4" X 5'-6"STORAGESTORAGESTORAGE6 BIKE PARKING SPOTS5'-4" X 5'-6"5'-4" X 5'-6"5'-4" X 5'-6"555 GSF1102 GSFWATER
2'-0"5'-3"4'-5"25'-8"22'-1"65'-7"
123'-0"
2'-0"4'-5"25'-8"16'-4"24'-0"47'-4"24'-0"25'-3"49'-3"1'-7"11'-5"1'-7"11'-5"6'-0"6'-0"9'-4"LOWER LEVEL AREA = 4,512 GSF
GARAGE = 1,657 GSF
2-STORY CALHOUN UNIT = 971 GSF (THIS LEVEL)
2-STORY CEDAR UNIT= 1,040 GSF (THIS LEVEL)
BUILDING / UNIT AREAS
BIKES/BIKES/BIKES/BIKES/TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 16,159 GSF
LOCATION OF
MECHANICAL UNITS AT
BLDG #6 ONLY
MECHANICAL UNITS
A103
BUILDING #2
LOWER LEVEL
PLAN
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN
A103
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 35
STUDY12'-0" X 9'-9"BEDROOM 211'-6" x 13'-2"GREAT ROOM18'-1" x 28'-2"GREAT ROOM18'-0" x 28'-2"DECKMASTER BEDROOM15'-2" x 15'-8"BATH5'-4" x 11'-4"CLOSET10'-10" x 7'-6"LAUNDRY6'-5" x 8'-5"L.ST.FPP.DWR.OPTIONALFPP.DWR.OPTIONALW/DBATH6'-0" x 18'-3"CLOSET6'-4" x 11'-1"W/DLAUNDRYMASTER BEDROOM16'-10" x 14'-0"L.DECK17'-6" x 5'-3"DECK17'-6" x 5'-3"1'-712"11'-412"6'-3"8'-1"6'-3"10'-912"2'-212"33'-10"22'-51
2"24'-11"4'-41
2"
85'-7"30'-6"17'-1112"48'-512"15'-111
2"23'-3"17'-1"24'-11"4'-41
2"EL. LOBBYBATH8'-0" x 8'-2"BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"L.L.AREA
OF
REFUGE
AREA
OF
REFUGE
10'-0"
B/O CL-1
FIRST LEVEL AREA = 3,610 GSF
2-STORY CALHOUN UNIT= 1,500 GSF (THIS LEVEL) 2,471 GSF TOTAL
2-STORY CEDAR UNIT= 1,649 GSF (THIS LEVEL) 2,689 GSF TOTAL
BUILDING / UNIT AREAS
CALHOUN UNIT (UPPER)
CEDAR UNIT (UPPER)
A104
BUILDING #2
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A104
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 36
FPBEDROOM 211'-8" x 11'-0"EL. LOBBYF.W.H.F.W.H.BEDROOM 211'-6" x 11'-0"STUDY11'-6" x 9'-0"BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"BATH8'-0" x 8'-2"GREAT ROOM18'-1" x 28'-2"GREAT ROOM18'-0" x 28'-2"BATH6'-0" x 18'-3"CLOSET6'-4" x 11'-1"BATH5'-4" x 11'-4"CLOSET10'-10" x 7'-6"W/DLAUNDRY17'-6" x 5'-3"MASTER BEDROOM16'-10" x 14'-0"MASTER BEDROOM15'-2" x 15'-8"L.L.L.L.P.DWR.OPTIONALFPP.DWR.OPTIONAL
W/DLAUNDRYDECK17'-6" x 5'-3"WINE /
PANTRY @ 3
17'-1112"30'-6"48'-512"15'-111
2"23'-3"17'-1"24'-11"4'-41
2"
33'-10"22'-51
2"24'-11"4'-41
2"5'-31
2"
90'-101
2"1'-712"11'-412"6'-3"8'-1"6'-3"11'-412"1'-712"AREA
OF
REFUGE
AREA
OF
REFUGE
SECOND AND THRID FLOOR AREA = 3,611 GSF
ISLE UNIT =1,467 GSF
HARRIET UNIT= 1,645 GSF
BUILDING / UNIT AREAS
HARRIET UNIT
ISLE UNIT
A105
BUILDING #2
SECOND & THIRD
FLOOR PLAN
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1 SECOND & THIRD FLOOR PLAN
A105
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 37
EL. LOBBYBATHCOMMONROOF DECKBATH7'-5" x 5'-4"STORAGESTORAGEFPKITCHENETTEPRIVATEROOF DECK18'-0" x 39'-0"10'-10" X 10'-6"10'-10" X 10'-6"FP18'-0" x 39'-0"1'-1134"17'-012"17'-1516"1'-1114"4'-0"25'-8"22'-1"33'-10"
85'-7"17'-1112"30'-1012"48'-10"15'-7"24'-0"16'-4"25'-8"4'-0"9'-3"AREA
OF
REFUGE
AREA
OF
REFUGE
3'-0"
PUBLIC ROOF = ENCLOSED = 631 GSF
(INCLUDES BOTH STAIRS, ELEVATOR LOBBY AND ELEVATOR)
OPEN DECK = 703 SF
BUILDING / UNIT AREAS
7'-5" x 5'-4"PRIVATE ROOF = ENCLOSED = 184 GSF
OPEN DECK = 719 SF
1X6 CEDAR BOARDS ON
WOOD POSTS SCREEN
FOR MECH. UNITS
KITCHENETTE
MECHANICAL
UNITS NOT TO
EXCEED 40" IN
HEIGHT
1X6 CEDAR BOARDS ON
WOOD POSTS SCREEN
FOR MECH. UNITS
MECHANICAL
UNITS NOT TO
EXCEED 40" IN
HEIGHT
A106
BUILDING #2
ROOF PLAN
GATEHOUSE PROPERTIES
ST. LOUIS PARK
MINNESOTA
w w w . c o l l a g e a r c h . c o m
DATE:08.27.2013
ZONING REVIEW SET
KEY PLAN
DATE: 08-23-13
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN
SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.
PETER KEELY
REGISTRATION NO: 23570
Collage | architects
Architect
Pete Keely
651.472.0050
705 Raymond Avenue #200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
WOODDALE
FLATS
1 ROOF PLAN
A106
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Wooddale Flats Rezoning, Preliminary & Final Plat and PUD - 4017 Utica Ave & 3998 Wooddale Ave Page 38
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: The West End AUAR Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review Update (AUAR) for The West End Redevelopment Project located in the
southwest quadrant of Highways 394 and 100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council accept Final AUAR Update for the West
End Redevelopment Project.
SUMMARY: City Council adopted an environmental analysis for The West End in 2007. The
type of analysis used was an Alternative Urban Areawide Review. The AUAR is due for an
update because it is five years old and all phases of the development have not been built. The
City of St. Louis Park is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for the AUAR. City Council
authorized distribution of the Draft AUAR Update on September 3, 2013.
The City hired Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to complete the AUAR update. The document
is attached for your review. The report focuses on the three areas that were identified as
potential limiting factors for development under the original AUAR, including sanitary sewer
use, water use, and traffic. The analysis used the latest information on existing conditions. The
analysis also explored two modified scenarios for remaining phases of development at The West
End, including potential future redevelopment of the Chili’s and Olive Garden sites to multiple-
family residential use.
The AUAR analysis determined that sanitary sewer is no longer a limiting factor for the
development. The capacity to handle the projected water use improved since the original study.
Also, traffic will operate acceptably and within the parameters of the original AUAR. The AUAR
recommends continuing to monitor and review both water use and traffic as each phase develops.
No state agencies or the Met Council objected to the AUAR Update. The comments that were
received were technical in nature and are addressed in the attached Final AUAR Update. The
letters from Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
Metropolitan Council, and the responses to each can be found in Appendix A.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Duke Realty provided an
escrow to the City of St. Louis Park to pay for all costs associated with the AUAR Update.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Final AUAR Update
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: The West End AUAR Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The West End Final AUAR was completed in 2007 and according to
Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, Subp. 7, must be revised every five years until all of the
development within the area has been given final approval. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
was retained to complete the AUAR Update.
The City of St. Louis Park is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this review, and as
such is required to officially approve the Final AUAR Update.
PARAMETERS OF THE AUAR UPDATE:
This AUAR Update includes two additional scenarios as outlined by the developer, which
change the amount of residential use previously proposed for the site:
Revised Scenario 1A:
• Existing conditions
• Replace Chili’s and Olive Garden sites with residential use (334 apartment units)
• 1.1 million SF of office space
Revised Scenario 1B:
• Existing conditions
• Replace Chili’s and Olive Garden sites with residential use (334 apartment units)
• 1.1 million SF of office space
• Add 250 more apartment units
The new scenarios are evaluated in comparison to the 2007 AUAR, specifically Scenario 1,
which most closely represents the actual plans for the site. An AUAR Update does not require
new analysis for each item addressed in the 2007 Final AUAR. Rather, the AUAR Update
documents the development and mitigation that has been completed to date, and any changes in
the development that have occurred or are planned to occur, which may affect future phases of
implementation or mitigation measures. The AUAR Update focused on the areas of traffic,
sanitary sewer, and water use since these were the areas that exceeded thresholds in the 2007
AUAR, and could have the potential to cause impacts under the revised scenarios studied in the
AUAR Update. In addition, the list of mitigation measures in the 2007 AUAR was reviewed and
updated to reflect current conditions.
RESULTS: Sanitary sewer use is not anticipated to be a limiting factor to development under
either scenario. With the removal of the Novartis/Nestle facility from the city’s system, the
baseline condition has been adjusted and sanitary use generated by the full buildout of the
development (Scenario 1B) falls beneath the thresholds identified in the AUAR, and within the
available capacity of the current Met Council interceptor. Met Council is also in the process of
increasing its system capacity in this area by the end of 2014.
Water use will remain a limiting factor for both Scenario 1A and Scenario 1B. It is the city’s
desire to remain under a 90 percent threshold of system use. At slightly over 90 and 92 percent
use of the system, respectively, both scenarios are less than what was identified in the original
AUAR (93.98%), but still over the 90 percent threshold. To remain within 90 percent capacity,
the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 AUAR still apply.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: The West End AUAR Update
Traffic would not be a limiting factor under Scenarios 1A or 1B. No additional mitigation
measures or adjustments are anticipated, but traffic should be monitored if full buildout of office
uses occurs.
PROCESS: Notice of availability for the Draft AUAR Update was published on September 16,
2013 in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor to start a mandatory 10-day
review period. Copies of the AUAR Update were sent to 14 state agencies, Met Council,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the City of Golden Valley, as required by the EQB.
The comment period ended on September 30, 2013. Three comment letters were received from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and Minnesota Department of
Transportation. These comments were straightforward and easy to address in the Final AUAR
Update. The letters and responses can be found in Appendix A of the Final AUAR document. No
state agencies or the Met Council objected to the AUAR Update.
NEXT STEPS: Following approval by the City Council, notice of the decision will be published
in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor, and a copy of the final document
will be distributed to all agencies on the distribution list.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: The West End AUAR Update
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE
REVIEW (AUAR) UPDATE FOR THE WEST END REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 394 AND 100
WHEREAS, Duke Realty is continuing to redevelop approximately 35 acres of land
located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100, and
WHEREAS, an environmental review is required by State Law, and
WHEREAS, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was been completed for
the property in 2007, and is required to be updated every five years per State Law, and
WHEREAS, a public and agency comment period was provided and comments were
addressed in accordance with the environmental review process and requirements, and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Plan addressing environmental impacts has been reviewed and
updated, and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures will continue to be specifically addressed in detail with
City land use and development approvals when specific site plans are proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby adopts
the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update and Mitigation Plan for The
West End Redevelopment Project located in the southwest quadrant of Highways 394 and 100.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
The West End AUAR Update
FINAL
(Update of Final AUAR Adopted April 9, 2007)
Prepared for:
In Cooperation with:
Prepared by:
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 5
ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW UPDATE
THE WEST END
FOR THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
Published September 16, 2013
Adopted _______, 2013
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 6
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Updated Scenarios ........................................................................................................................... 2
4.0 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................................. 2
5.0 Mitigation Summary and Update .................................................................................................... 6
6.0 AUAR Update Review ..................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A. Comments and Responses
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 7
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The West End study area consists of 48.6 acres located at the southwest corner of I-394 and Trunk
Highway 100 in St. Louis Park, MN, with eastern portions of the site in Golden Valley, MN (see Figures 1
and 2).
The City of St. Louis Park adopted The West End Final AUAR in March 2007. Since that time, some
development within the study area has occurred. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7, an
AUAR and plan for mitigation must be revised every five years until all development in the study area has
received final approval. Since the study area has not been fully developed, the purpose of this document
is to update The West End AUAR pursuant to Minnesota Rules.
The 2007 AUAR included an analysis of five development scenarios as follows:
x Scenario 1 – 1,750,000 SF of redevelopment
x Scenario 2 – Maximum Build Scenario – 3,085,00 SF of redevelopment
x Scenario 3 – Minimum Build Scenario – 1,530,000 SF of redevelopment
x Scenario 4 – 1,700,00 SF of redevelopment
x Scenario 5 – Comprehensive Plan Scenario – 2,000,000 SF of redevelopment
The 2007 adopted AUAR is available on the City’s website at www.stlouispark.org. This report is
intended to serve as an update of the 2007 AUAR and includes a report on development to date,
disclosure of updated development scenarios, an update to the environmental analysis as necessary,
and a review of mitigation measures.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Scenario 1 as evaluated in the 2007 AUAR most closely resembles actual plans for the site, and has
been consistently used as a comparison for reviewing development proposals. The 2007 AUAR Scenario
1 includes:
x 1.0 million SF of office space
x 400,000 SF of retail space (this number also includes restaurant and entertainment uses)
x 250 condo units
Since 2007, some of the planned development types have changed slightly. Most notably, planned
condos were replaced with 119 apartment units known as The Flats at West End. Current development
of the site includes:
x 198,061 SF of retail, including grocery
x 88,336 SF of restaurant (full service and fast food)
x 59,500 SF of movie theater
x 35,396 SF of 2nd story office
x 119 apartment units
The current Chili’s and Olive Garden sites may be removed to accommodate redevelopment. No office
towers have been constructed to date. These development conditions were incorporated into the
analyses completed for this AUAR Update.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 8
2
In addition, a significant industrial facility has been removed from the city’s system since the 2007 AUAR
was completed. The Novartis/Nestle facility is located outside of the AUAR boundary and was removed
from the city’s system in April 2013. This facility used approximately eight percent of the city’s water
capacity, so its removal reduces existing demand on the system. This adjustment was made to the
baseline condition for purposes of this update.
3.0 UPDATED SCENARIOS
This AUAR Update includes two additional scenarios as outlined by the developer, which change the
amount of residential use previously proposed for the site:
Revised Scenario 1A:
x Existing conditions
x Replace Chilis and Olive Garden sites with residential use (334 apartment units)
x 1.1 million SF of office space
Revised Scenario 1B:
x Existing conditions
x Replace Chilis and Olive Garden sites with residential use (334 apartment units)
x 1.1 million SF of office space
x Add 250 more apartment units
The new scenarios are evaluated in comparison to the 2007 AUAR, specifically Scenario 1, which most
closely represents the actual plans for the site.
4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impact analysis of revised Scenarios 1A and 1B focuses on sanitary sewer, water use, and traffic. These
were the issues which approached established thresholds or required specific mitigation measures as
noted in the 2007 Final AUAR. For other issue areas, the analysis that was completed in 2007 remains
valid. The issue areas expected to have no anticipated change in impact or mitigation measures are
listed in Section 4.1 below. Areas requiring updated analysis are captured in Section 4.2.
4.1 AREAS OF NO ANTICIPATED CHANGE
No changes are anticipated for the following areas within the 2007 AUAR.
x Land Use
x Cover Types
x Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Areas
x Physical Impacts on Water Resources
x Water-Related Land Use Management District
x Water Surface Use
x Erosion and Sedimentation
x Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff
x Water Quality: Wastewaters
x Geological Hazards and Soil Conditions
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 9
3
x Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks
x Vehicle-Related Air Emissions
x Stationary Source Air Emissions
x Odors, Noise, and Dust
x Nearby Resources (Cultural Resources, Farmlands, Parks, Scenic Views)
x Visual Impacts
x Compatibility with Plans
x Cumulative Impacts
x Other Potential Environmental Impacts
4.2 AREAS REQUIRING UPDATED ANALYSIS
Sanitary Sewer4.2.1
Sanitary sewer use is not anticipated to be a limiting factor to development under either scenario. With
the removal of the Novartis/Nestle facility, the baseline condition has been adjusted and sanitary use
generated by the full buildout of the development falls (Scenario 1B) beneath the thresholds identified in
the AUAR, and within the available capacity of the current MCES interceptor (7.4 millions of gallons per
day [MGD]). See Table 1. Metropolitan Council is also in the process of designing improvements to the
current sanitary sewer system that are anticipated to increase system capacity by 5 MGD. Construction
is anticipated to be complete by December of 2014.
Table 1. Net Sanitary Peak Flow
4.3 WATER USE
Water use will remain a limiting factor for both Scenario 1A and Scenario 1B. At slightly over 90 and 92
percent use of the system, respectively, both scenarios are less than what was identified in the original
AUAR. However, as stated in the original AUAR, it is the city’s desire to remain under a 90 percent
threshold. To remain within 90 percent capacity, additional mitigation measures or adjustments would be
necessary under either scenario.
AUAR Scenario
1*
Revised Scenario
1A**
Revised Scenario
1B**
Existing Average Daily Flow (MGD)2.6 2.6 2.6
Average Daily Flow Increase (MGD)***0.269 0.393 0.462
Average Daily Flow Decrease (MGD)0.044 0.506 0.506
Net Average Daily Flow Adjustment (MGD)0.225 -0.113 -0.044
Total Average Daily Flow
(Existing + Net Flow Adjustment) (MGD)2.825 2.487 2.556
Peak Hourly Flow (2.7 Peak Factor) (MGD)7.628 6.715 6.901
Peak Hourly Flow (2.37 Peak Factor) (MGD)6.695 5.894 6.058
*Decrease includes the Demolition of Existing
buildings from 2007 AUAR.
*** Increase is adjusted based on future demolition of Chili's and
Olive Garden
**Decrease Includes the Demolition of Existing buildings from 2007 AUAR and the closing of the Nestle factory. Nestle
flow decrease estimated to be 95% of Nestle Water Use information provided by the City, to account for Irrigation and
Infiltration.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 10
4
Table 2. Water Use Summary
4.4 TRAFFIC
Traffic would not be a limiting factor under Scenarios 1A or 1B as reflected in the following tables,
although under Scenario 1B, trips are very close to the AUAR thresholds for the AM peak. No additional
mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated, but traffic should be monitored if full buildout under
Scenario 1B occurs.
Table 3. Traffic Summary – Scenario 1A
AUAR
Scenario 1
Revised Scenario
1A*
Revised Scenario
1B*
Total Firm System Capacity (MGD)13.32 13.32 13.32
City Firm Peak Usage (MGD)11.880 10.920 10.920
Capacity Available (MGD)1.436 2.400 2.400
Proposed Project Usage (MGD)0.638 1.114 1.310
Total City Usage (MGD)12.518 12.034 12.230
Capacity Available (post-construction) (MGD)0.802 1.286 1.090
Percent Total System Utilitized 93.98% 90.35%91.82%
*City Peak Usage Adjusted for removal of
Nestle Factory
In Out In Out
Office 1,100,000 square
feet 8,310 1169 159 224 1094
Retail/Restaurant 346,674 square
feet 14,863 218 139 624 676
Apartments 454 Units 3,019 45 182 176 95
Trip Generation Subtotal 26,192 1,432 480 1,024 1,865
Multi-Use Reduction (-10%)-2,619 -143 -48 -102 -187
TOTAL 23,573 1,289 432 922 1,678
Percent Increase -1% 9% 22% 2% 3%
2007 AUAR Trip Generation Limits 1,320 528 1,167 1,883
Land Use Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDaily Trips
1 Trip generation calculations as documented in the West End AUAR, based on
ITE Trip Generation, 7 th Edition (2003).
2 Trip generation calculations based on the most recent version of ITE Trip Generation, 9 th Edition (2012).
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 11
5
Table 4. Traffic Summary – Scenario 1B
4.5 SUMMARY
The West End development will exceed the original AUAR estimates for sewage flow and water demand,
however with the removal of the Novartis/Nestle facility, the existing infrastructure is capable of
supporting the increased sanitary sewer demand created by the development under both Scenarios 1A
and 1B.
Water use is anticipated to be under the 2007 AUAR thresholds for both Scenarios 1A and 1B. However,
both scenarios are above the city’s preferred 90 percent total system use. Additional mitigation measures
or adjustments may be required.
Traffic generated by both Scenarios 1A and 1B can be accommodated within the limits established in the
original AUAR; however Scenario 1B is very close to reaching thresholds in the AM peak. No additional
mitigation measures or adjustments are anticipated at this time, but traffic should be monitored if full
buildout under Scenario 1B is implemented.
In Out In Out
Office 1,100,000 square
feet 8,310 1169 159 224 1094
Retail 346,674 square
feet 14,863 218 139 624 676
Apartments 454 Units 3,019 45 182 176 95
Added Apartments 250 Units 1,663 25 100 97 52
Trip Generation Subtotal 27,855 1,457 580 1,121 1,917
Multi-Use Reduction (-10%)-2,785 -146 -58 -112 -192
TOTAL 25,070 1,311 522 1,009 1,725
Percent Increase 5% 11%48%11%6%
2007 AUAR Trip Generation Limits 1,320 528 1,167 1,883
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourLand Use Size
1 Trip generation calculations as documented in the West End AUAR, based on
ITE Trip Generation, 7 th Edition (2003).
2 Trip generation calculations based on the most recent version of ITE Trip Generation, 9 th Edition (2012).
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 12
6
5.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY AND UPDATE
Based on this AUAR Update, the West End has developed generally as anticipated under Scenario 1 in
the 2007 AUAR. Mitigation measures outlined in the 2007 AUAR remain valid or have been completed,
or may no longer apply. The mitigation measures are outlined below, including a progress update. As a
result of the analysis update, no additional mitigation measures are proposed over those identified in the
2007 AUAR.
5.1 REDEVELOPMENT PHASING
5.1.1 The developer will not incorporate condominiums into the proposed redevelopment at this time. If
in the future condominiums are desired on the site, a re-evaluation of impacts will need to occur.No
longer applies. Apartments have been built instead of condominiums on the site.
5.1.2 Development will be phased to allow for incremental monitoring of utility usage. Timing of all
phases will be market dependent, but the following is an estimated schedule:
Phase 1 – all retail development on western half of site (Summer 2007 – Winter 2008-2009)
Completed
Phase 2 – one office building and hotel on eastern half of site (Summer 2007 – Fall 2008)
Incomplete; office building has not been built and apartments built instead of hotel
Phase 3 – remaining office buildings (market dependent)Incomplete
5.2 WATER USE
The City’s goal is that total water usage not exceed 90 percent of the City’s existing capacity. The 90
percent threshold is a concern only during periods of extreme summer peak water usage (1 to 5 week
period). To manage water usage, the following strategies will be implemented:
5.2.1 Site users will abide by the City’s restrictions on lawn sprinkling, including no watering between
noon and 6:00 P.M., and adhering to the odd/even schedule (properties with odd numbered addresses
sprinkle on odd numbered days, and properties with even numbered addresses sprinkle on even
numbered days). Additional use restrictions can also be implemented in accordance with the City’s Water
Supply and Conservation Plan.Remains valid
5.2.2 Developer will follow State requirements for use of standard low-flow fixtures.Remains valid
5.2.3 The City will monitor water use via meter readings after Phases 1 and 2 of the redevelopment
are complete (retail and one office building, respectively). Water use calculations will be re-evaluated at
this time.Complete for Phase 1. Phase 2 now considered to be apartment development. Remains
valid.
5.2.4 If water use exceeds expectations, and/or future phases are anticipated to exceed 90 percent
total system capacity, the City and the developer will cooperate to explore both city-wide and project-
specific measures to increase capacity and minimize peak water consumption. Methods could include
reclamation of stormwater for irrigation purposes.Remains valid
5.2.5 The City will explore the possibility of adding a treatment plant to Well #6, which is currently
inactive. This project is not currently identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, however it could
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 13
7
add 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to the existing system capacity. This or other strategies will be
evaluated for providing additional water capacity. A target implementation date has not been identified. If
the need is shown, the timing of this project may be accelerated in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Remains valid
With regards to the existing monitoring well located near the study area, the developer will:
5.2.6 Coordinate with the MPCA to regarding procedure for sealing this well, if deemed necessary. If
well replacement is required, the location of the new well will be determined in coordination with the
MPCA. Completed
Dewatering during construction will require:
5.2.7 The developers will obtain a Groundwater Appropriation Permit as required if dewatering will
exceed 10,000 gallons per day.Remains valid
5.2.8 All water pumped during construction dewatering activities will be discharged in compliance with
the City, watershed and MDNR requirements and the NPDES permit. No discharge water will be
directed to surface waters without prior retention in a temporary settling basin.Remains valid
5.2.9 The City and the developer will follow current water appropriation permit review and approval
processes as reflective of the Master Water Supply Plan (Master Plan) for the Twin Cities metro area, as
jointly adopted by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.New
measure added at request of Metropolitan Council
5.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
5.3.1 Project proposers are required to acquire NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction
Activity from the MPCA prior to initiating earthwork for each phase of project. This permit requires that the
MPCA’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion and that all erosion controls be
inspected at least once every seven days and after each rainfall exceeding 0.5 inch of precipitation.
Remains valid
5.3.2 The City will require project proposers to meet the erosion and sediment control regulations in all
applicable regulations, ordinances and rules of the City, MPCA, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD).Remains valid
5.3.3 The developer will carry out soil correction for the proposed buildings. Existing fill and buried
organic soils must be subcut and removed to expose medium dense to dense non-organic granular soils,
after which approved compacted backfill must be placed. Possible methods for project building
foundations, as recommended in the Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Exploration (AET, Inc.,
September 2006) include:
x Carry out conventional soil correction, which will require dewatering, backfill with approved
compacted granular soils and crushed rock, and support the buildings on conventional spread
footing foundations. Additional borings and pressure meter testing would be required for this
method.Remains valid
x Use rammed aggregate piers to improve the existing fill and naturally-occurring soils in situ,and
support the buildings on conventional spread footing foundations.Remains valid
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 14
8
x Use driven pile foundations, with structural slabs for the lowest levels.Remains valid
5.4 WATER QUALITY – SURFACE WATER RUNOFF
5.4.1 The City will require stormwater management systems to be developed in accordance with
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules,City ordinances and National Urban Runoff Program
standards.Remains valid
5.4.2 The City will require project proposers to use techniques that reduce total phosphorus content of
proposed runoff by 50 percent, per MCWD requirements.Remains valid
5.4.3 The developer will work with MCWD to determine acceptable BMPs and/or treatment systems to
accommodate required phosphorous removal.Remains valid
5.4.4 The City recommends that project proposers use stormwater management techniques that
encourage infiltration of stormwater runoff whenever possible, to maximize the infiltration potential of the
AUAR Study Area.Remains valid
5.4.5 The project is located within the Drinking Water Supply Management Area for the City of St.
Louis Park. Stormwater infiltration practices will be developed using Minnesota Department of Health
guidance for vulnerable wellhead protection areas.New measure added at the request of Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
5.4.6 Implement provisions of the City’s Erosion Control Ordinance that require the use, management
and enforcement of BMPs to provide pretreatment of water discharged during and after construction.
Remains valid
5.4.7 The City will require that the stormwater management system be designed to hold the 100-year
event rate on-site and release it at the 10-year event rate, per City standards.Remains valid
5.5 WATER QUALITY – WASTEWATER
The City will require that construction and operation of the sanitary system maintain existing City peak
flow of 2.37 and no greater than 6.5 peak MGD at M-120 as required by Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES). To accomplish this, the following strategies will be implemented:
5.5.1 The City and MCES will monitor flow readings at M-120 after construction of Phases 1 and 2 are
complete (retail and one office building), and after a major rain event.No longer applies – capacity no
longer a limiting factor.
5.5.2 Upon completion of Phase 2, flow projections will be re-evaluated based on post-Phase 2
monitoring. Sanitary flow calculations will be re-evaluated at this time. If sanitary flow into M-120 for full
development is projected to exceed 6.5 peak MGD prior to planned MCES improvements to the
interceptor, the City and developer will coordinate to design and construct appropriate temporary peak
flow storage until the MCES interceptor is upgraded or other solutions are implemented. The specific
obligations of the developer will be addressed in the Developer’s Agreement for its project.No longer
applies – capacity no longer a limiting factor.
5.5.3 The City will place priority on inflow and infiltration projects within the flowshed of this interceptor
in the next 3 years.Remains valid
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 15
9
5.5.4 The City will coordinate with MCES to encourage construction and completion of the planned
interceptor improvements by the end of 2010, as stated in an MCES letter to City of St. Louis Park dated
December 13, 2006 (Appendix B).No longer applies; construction in progress and anticipated to
be completed by December 2014.
5.6 SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, AND STORAGE TANKS
5.6.1 Efforts will be made by the developer to minimize pollution during construction by properly
disposing of construction debris in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.Remains valid
5.6.2 The developer will inspect, sample, and remove building materials prior to demolition, as
required by state law. All asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint will be disposed of according
to state and federal regulations in an MPCA-licensed demolition landfill.Remains valid
5.6.3 Any disturbance of lead-based paint will require compliance with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) Lead in Construction Standard.Remains valid
5.6.4 Other solid waste materials found in the buildings may also require special disposal or recycling
prior to demolition, such as fluorescent bulbs, furnace and other utility materials, motors, drinking
fountains, electronic equipment, and electrical materials. The developer will handle and dispose of these
materials in accordance with state and federal regulations.Remains valid
5.6.5 The City will require that the demolition contractor consider, if applicable, a source separation
and recycling plan for concrete, wood, and metal.Remains valid
5.6.6 The developer will remove all tanks and associated underground piping in accordance with
applicable state and federal laws. Remains valid
5.6.7 Any party that may discover contaminated materials shall follow state law and report immediately
to the state duty officer at 651-649-5451 or 800-422-0798. Remains valid
5.7 TRAFFIC
The following list of mitigation strategies includes all of the transportation improvements recommended in
the Minneapolis West Redevelopment Traffic Analysis, Final Report,prepared by SRF Consulting Group,
Inc. in January 2007. Following approval of the 2007 AUAR, the City of St. Louis Park worked with the
developer on the feasibility of, and phasing required for each mitigation strategy, and how each was
linked to the proposed development phasing. Responsibility for constructing and funding of these
strategies was determined between the City and developer, and was documented in the developer’s
agreement.
The following mitigation strategies were recommended to be completed prior to the completion of Phases
1 and 2 for all scenarios studied in the 2007 AUAR, with additional mitigation strategies recommended
prior to Phase 3. Based on the current level of development, it can be assumed that Phase 1 and part of
Phase 2 of development have been completed.
This list was reviewed by the City of St. Louis Park to document what mitigation measures have been
completed, and which mitigation measures remain. The analysis completed for this AUAR Update did not
identify any additional traffic mitigation measures.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 16
10
Phases 1 and 2 Recommended Improvements
Park Place Boulevard/I-394 North Ramp:
5.7.1 Install a westbound right-turn lane to provide a dual right-turn lane. In addition, modify the signal
phasing to provide a right-turn overlap phase and optimize timing.Remains valid
Park Place Boulevard/I-394 South Ramp
5.7.2 Install a northbound right-turn lane to provide a single right-turn lane. Completed
Park Place Boulevard/Wayzata Boulevard:
5.7.3 Install a southbound left-turn lane to provide dual left-turn lanes. In addition, widen eastbound
Wayzata Boulevard to accommodate the dual-left turn lane.Completed
Park Place Boulevard/West 16th Street:
5.7.4 Modify the westbound approach to provide dual left-turn lanes, one through lane and a right-turn
lane.Completed In addition, modify the signal phasing to provide a right-turn overlap phase.
Completed
5.7.5 Modify the eastbound shared through/left-turn lane to an exclusive left-turn lane to provide dual
left-turn lanes.Completed
5.7.6 Modify the existing exclusive eastbound right-turn lane to provide a shared through/right-turn
lane.Completed
5.7.7 Eliminate the current split phasing and optimize the signal timing.Completed
Quentin Avenue/Wayzata Boulevard:
5.7.8 Install a southbound right-turn lane.Remains valid
5.7.9 Install an eastbound right-turn lane. Remains valid
Quentin Avenue/Old Cedar Lake Road :
5.7.10 Install a northbound left-turn lane.Completed
5.7.11 Modify the current striping to provide a southbound right-turn lane.Remains valid
TH 100 East Frontage Road/Old Cedar Lake Road:
5.7.12 Modify and widen the westbound approach and re-stripe as two lanes. Remains valid
5.7.13 Widen the west end of the concrete island to create a 90-degree T-intersection. Remains valid
Phase 3 Recommended Improvements
Park Place Boulevard/I-394 North Ramp:
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 17
11
5.7.14 Install a westbound right-turn lane to provide a dual right-turn lane. In addition, modify the signal
phasing to provide a right-turn overlap phase.Remains valid
Park Place Boulevard/Wayzata Boulevard:
5.7.15 Install a westbound right-turn lane to provide dual right-turn lanes.Completed In addition, modify
the signal phasing to provide a right-turn overlap phase and optimize timing. Completed
5.7.16 Install an additional northbound through lane beginning at north of Wayzata Boulevard and
ending at the I-394 South Ramp.Completed
Park Place Boulevard/West 16th Street:
5.7.17 Extend the existing southbound left-turn lane to provide 300 feet of storage.Completed
5.7.18 Modify the existing northbound shared through/right-turn lane to a through lane only.Completed
5.7.19 Install a northbound right-turn lane.Completed
Park Place Boulevard/Gamble Drive:
5.7.20 Modify the existing westbound shared through/left-turn lane to an exclusive left-turn lane to
provide dual left-turn lanes.Completed
5.7.21 Convert the existing westbound right-turn lane to a through lane and install an exclusive right-
turn lane on this approach.Completed In addition, modify the signal phasing to provide a right-turn
overlap phase. Completed
5.7.22 Eliminate the current split phasing and optimize the signal timing. Completed
Based on the trip generation estimates, Scenarios 2 and 4 were the most intensive redevelopment
scenarios. In addition to the improvements listed above, the following improvements are also
recommended to maintain acceptable operations at all key intersections for future year 2010 build
conditions under Scenarios 2 and 4.
x Park Place Boulevard/Wayzata Boulevard – Install an additional northbound through lane
beginning at West 16th Street, connecting to the through lane recommended at Wayzata
Boulevard.Completed as a shared northbound through/right turn lane from the north side
of 16th Street to Wayzata Boulevard
x Park Place Boulevard/Wayzata Boulevard – Install an exclusive northbound right-turn lane.
Remains valid
Even with all of the proposed improvements, it was determined in the original AUAR that the intersection
of Park Place Boulevard/West 16th Street, would continue to operate at a poor level of service under the
maximum build scenario (Scenario 2). Therefore, it was determined that the adjacent roadway network
cannot support the full build (100 percent) of Scenario 2. A sensitivity analysis was conducted and it was
concluded that with the improvements identified, the adjacent roadway systems could accommodate 90
percent of the development assumed for Scenario 2, or 90 percent of the estimated peak hour trips under
this scenario. Therefore, the final site plan cannot generate traffic that exceeds the following thresholds:
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 18
12
x 1,320 inbound trips and 528 outbound trips in the A.M. peak hour
x 1,167 inbound and 1,883 outbound trips in the P.M. peak hour
The AUAR Update traffic analysis was compared to these thresholds.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley have established a joint task force, which reviews Travel
Demand Management (TDM) Plans for development in the established I-394 overlay zoning district. The
AUAR study area lies completely within Zone A of this overlay district (City of St. Louis Park Code, Article
IV, Sections 36-321 through 36-330).
All developments proposed within the area covered by this overlay district which contain more than 0.6
square foot of gross floor area per each square foot of land area within a lot or parcel shall obtain a
conditional use permit which conforms to the terms of this division. The conditional use permit shall
contain measures to reduce travel demand within the district, including the following conditions:
x A TDM Plan initially shall be prepared when the traffic generated for one hour during the P.M.
peak hour three out of five consecutive business days reaches LOS E at more than half of the
intersections (I-394 ramps and frontage road intersections) of the Xenia/Park Place interchange.
Remains valid
x Each development shall monitor the traffic generated by it (the locations and times to be
determined by the joint task force)Remains valid
x The TDM plans prepared by the owners may require the use of rideshare incentive programs,
public transit incentives, bicycle and pedestrian incentive measures, variable work hours or flex-
time programs under which employees are required to stagger their work hours, measures to
reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, shared parking and the like.Remains valid
Based on these criteria and the traffic analysis that was completed for the AUAR study area, a TDM plan
was not required for this area under city code. However, the City of St. Louis Park elected to require the
development of a TDM plan for this study area, which may reduce the number of traffic improvements
that may be required and could also reduce the on-site parking requirements. The TDM plan was
required with the Developer Agreement.
A TDM plan for the West End was completed in 2008. The measures listed below are intended to
encourage residents, employees and visitors of The West End to use alternative modes of transportation
instead of driving alone. The implementation of such measures is/will be facilitated by the developer or
current building owner(s).
(1)Ridesharing incentive programs
x Provide information on all of the transportation alternatives, such as: bus-route maps, carpooling,
and other information at on-site key locations. Information may be provided to new
employees/residents in orientation or welcome packets.Remains valid
x Conduct an annual transportation alternatives awareness campaign which will include
information on all transportation alternatives.Remains valid
(2)Public transit incentive programs
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 19
13
x Promote transit through information dissemination.Remains valid
x Provide discount bus passes, such as Metro Pass, to provide incentives for transit use.Remains
valid
(3)Improvements in public transit
x Work with Metro Transit to reroute bus service to serve the study area directly, especially the
office buildings.Remains valid
x Promote transit use through the provision of transit stops, bus shelters, and bus layover areas
within the study area.Remains valid
(4)Bicycle and pedestrian incentive measures
x Promote bicycling and walking through information dissemination and the provision of bicycle
storage facilities (i.e. bike racks and/or bike lockers), with nearby shower facilities for employees
biking or walking to work.Remains valid
(5)Variable work hours, or flex time
x Promote flexible schedules for employees Remains valid
x Provide telecommuting information. All residential units will be provided with digital cable
access, giving residents the option of subscribing to high speed internet access.Remains valid
(6)Measures to reduce the reliance on single-occupancy vehicles:
x Promote car and vanpooling through information dissemination and with the assistance of Metro
Commuter Services. Incentives such as preferential parking location for carpoolers may be
offered as well.Remains valid
(7)Provision of less parking area than that required under the provision of this chapter, shared
parking arrangements, the incorporation of residential units Remains valid
(8)Any other technique or combination of techniques capable of reducing the traffic and related
impacts of the proposed use. Remains valid
x The plan should designate an individual to act as the traffic management program coordinator to
disseminate materials and participate in training or informational sessions about traffic-
management programs.Remains valid
x Work with delivery vehicles to access the site during off-peak traffic periods.Remains valid
5.8 VISUAL IMPACTS
5.8.1 Developer will design lighting to minimize impact on surrounding land uses, and a lighting plan
will be developed to comply with City requirements.Remains valid
5.8.2 Developer shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings, per City
requirements.Remains valid
5.8.3 City will review lighting impacts on surrounding neighborhoods during the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process.Remains valid
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 20
14
5.8.4 Developer will fully screen all cooling towers in accordance with City requirements.Remains
valid
5.9 COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS
5.9.1 Developer will request re-zoning with the City of Golden Valley to ensure that proposed land
uses are consistent with current zoning.Completed
5.9.2 The proposer will work with the City of St. Louis Park to create a site plan which incorporates all
City Code requirements.Remains valid
5.10 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS:
5.10.1 The proposed development will require an amendment to the City’s current Zoning Ordinance
and other City Code and permit requirements.Completed
5.10.2 Approval of plans through the City’s development process, together with the necessary
development agreements, which include specific requirements.Remains valid
5.10.3 Enforcement of the permitting requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal agencies.
Remains valid
5.10.4 Update the AUAR if the following conditions or assumptions change in accordance with MN
Rules 4410.3610, subp. 3:
x Five years have passed since the RGU adopted the original environmental analysis document
and plan for mitigation or the latest revision. This item does not apply if all development within
the area has been given final approval by the RGU.Remains valid
x A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in development
over the levels assumed in the environmental analysis document.Remains valid
x Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the
environmental analysis document.Remains valid
x A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service development in the area
that may result in increased adverse impacts on the environment.Remains valid
x Development or construction of public facilities will occur on a schedule other than that assumed
in the environmental analysis document or plan for mitigation so as to substantially increase the
likelihood or magnitude of potential adverse environmental impacts or to substantially postpone
the implementation of identified mitigation measures.Remains valid
x New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background conditions used in the
analysis presented in the environmental analysis document are substantially in error and that
environmental impacts have consequently been substantially underestimated.Remains valid
x The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may affect the potential
for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts.Remains valid
6.0 AUAR UPDATE REVIEW
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7, this AUAR Update is available for a comment period of
10 business days. Once the comment period is over and if no objections are filed by state agencies or
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 21
15
the Metropolitan Council, the City of St. Louis Park will adopt the AUAR Update. The West End AUAR
will remain valid for an additional five years from the adoption date.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 22
A-1
Appendix A. Comments and
Responses
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 23
A-2
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 24
A-3
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 25
A-4
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 26
A-5
A Response: Updated CORSIM and SYNCHRO analyses are not available at this time. As
development progresses and more detailed traffic analyses may be needed, the City will keep
MnDOT engaged in the process.
B Response: These edits have been made, although this document still does reflect that a single
right-turn lane at Park Place Boulevard/I-394 South Ramp was completed.
C Response:Correct; this has been changed to westbound.
D Response:Comment noted, thank you.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 27
A-6
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 28
A-7
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 29
A-8
A Response:Updated permit requirements have been incorporated.
B Response:The City and the developer have partnered with the watershed district to implement
several unique stormwater management practices on the site, and will continue to do so in future
phases of development.
C Response:These revisions have been incorporated.
D Response:Comment noted, thank you.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 30
A-9
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 31
A-10
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 32
A-11
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 33
A-12
A Response:Comment noted, thank you.
B Response:Reference to the Master Water Supply Plan and current permitting processes is
included as item 5.2.9.
C Response:Comment noted.
D Response:As future phases of development occur, Atlas 14 data will be used to ensure that
stormwater infrastructure is appropriately sized and implemented.
E Response:A mitigation measure has been added as 5.4.5 to address the Drinking Water Supply
Management Area and MDH guidance.
F Response:Comment noted.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8b)
Title: The West End AUAR Update Page 34
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Major Amendment to
the Planned Unit Development for the West End allowing a multiple family dwelling at 5245
Wayzata Boulevard and in the Office zoning district, subject to conditions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council support the proposed use and PUD
modifications?
SUMMARY: Millennium at West End LLC purchased the property at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard
and proposes to raze the former Chili’s restaurant building and replace it with a multiple-family
residential development. The proposed building would be six stories tall consisting of 158
market rate units and two levels of underground structured parking. The unit mix will include 23
studios (15%), 57 1-bedrooms (36%), 16 1 –bedrooms + dens (10%), 56 2-bedrooms (35%), and
six 3-bedrooms (4%).
The development site is part of The West End and requires a Major Amendment to the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for the change in use from commercial to multiple-family residential.
The request includes modifications to the housing density, front and side yards, and floor area
ratio. A PUD Major Amendment requires a supermajority (five of the seven members) of the
City Council to approve the development.
Public Process: The City Council reviewed an earlier concept plan for the development at a study
session in July. The applicant made several revisions to the plans to address City comments and
submitted a formal zoning application (#13-31-PUD) on August 6, 2013. Some of the
improvements include reducing the number of units, adding three-bedroom apartments to the
mix, staggering building height in key locations, adding parking spaces, providing two levels of
underground parking instead of one, adding apartment units to the first floor (instead of parking),
increasing the south setback, and improving the garage entrance onto Wayzata Boulevard.
The developer held a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, August 28, 2013. It was lightly
attended, but the plan received positive feedback. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on September 18, 2013, and recommended approval of the development (4-0). The
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommended collecting park and trail fees in-lieu
of land dedication.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion, City Engineering Memorandum, Resolution,
Planning Commission Minutes, Architect Design Package, Architectural and Civil Drawings
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
The proposed site is part of the West End mixed-use development which includes, two office
towers, a shopping center, Chili’s and Olive Garden Restaurants, and 119 residential units at the
Flats at West End that was approved by planned unit development (PUD) in 2008 and
subsequent amendments.
The West End development is located south of Interstate 394, West of State Highway 100, East
of Park Place Boulevard and north of Gamble Drive. The proposed redevelopment (outlined in
red below) is adjacent to Hilton Homewood Suites, Flats at West End, and Olive Garden
restaurant and has direct access onto Wayzata Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
The overall West End PUD includes a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. It
provides a walkable and desirable urban residential environment. The development includes
access to restaurants, entertainment, shopping, plazas, and attractive pedestrian ways. The
development is served by Metro Transit bus routes 9, 604, 649. The North Cedar Lake and Luce
Line Regional Trails are within biking distance for commuter and recreational purposes. The
nearest public parks are ½ mile from the site. Additional green spaces are planned in the Towers
at West End office development east of Utica Avenue.
Environmental Review
An AUAR (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review) was completed in 2007 and has been updated
in 2013. The AUAR studied the impacts of various development scenarios on the environment,
including (but not limited to) public infrastructure systems for water, sewer, and road systems.
The change from restaurant to multiple-family dwelling results in a higher demand than the
approved PUD, but the development is still within the thresholds studied in the AUAR. The City
will continue to evaluate the capacity of key systems before approval of each phase of The West
End development.
Redevelopment Agreement
The City and Economic Development Authority have an existing agreement for the West End
Redevelopment that permits up to 300 units of residential development. Therefore, no revision
to the existing redevelopment agreement is needed for this development.
ZONING ANALYSIS
Use
Multiple-family dwellings are allowed by PUD in the Office zoning district.
Density
The Office zoning district allows the proposed increase in residential density from 50 dwelling
units per acre to 99 dwelling units per acre, with a PUD.
Parking is provided in an underground structure. The building is located near the street and off-
street parking is screened from the public right-of-way. Most of the apartment building ground
coverage contains structures six stories in height, except areas where amenity terraces are
provided. Based on the above findings, the design meets the conditions in the Office zoning
district to allow the proposed density increase.
In 2010, the City approved a residential density of 112.6 units per acre for the neighboring Flats
at West End development.
Architectural Design Standards
The building is six stories tall with two levels of underground parking. Walk up residential units,
lobby, and amenity spaces are provided on the first level and the building front is oriented to the
east. The building height varies in height in key locations where the sixth level steps back to
provide amenity terraces, reduce the mass of the building, and provide visual interest.
The exterior materials include brick, glass, stone, stucco and prefinished metal panel. The plan
meets the requirement for a minimum of 60% class I materials on each building elevation.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
Site Access and Circulation
The central organizing feature of the new development will be a private road/driveway that runs
north-south between the new development and Olive Garden properties. This private drive also
provides access to a service door for the neighboring Flats at West End. This private
road/driveway is labeled “New Street” on the attached site plans.
New Street has a full access connection to Wayzata Boulevard and right-in/right-out access onto
16th Street. In addition, the plan has a full-access driveway onto Wayzata Boulevard on the west
side of the site to access the underground garage for residents. The proposed accesses closely
match the existing driveways on Wayzata Boulevard.
The garage entrance onto Wayzata Boulevard has been recessed into the building to provide
additional space for cars to stack when entering the garage. In addition, the architect has stated
the development specifications will call for installation of a high-speed overhead door to reduce
the wait time for vehicles entering the garage. This is included as a condition of approval.
The plan also provides a “hammerhead” space for the neighboring Flats at West End to
maneuver and turn around vehicles near its service door.
There is an improved sidewalk proposed along Wayzata Boulevard. The sidewalk extends onto
private property. A public sidewalk easement will be required over the proposed sidewalk along
Wayzata Boulevard.
The applicant has provided copies of existing and proposed ingress/egress agreements for New
Street and the “hammerhead” space.
City Attorney approval of the form of all required agreements is a condition of approval. Said
agreement must be executed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.
Parking
The Zoning Code requires one parking stall for each bedroom in multiple-family dwellings. The
building will have 226 bedrooms. The plan provides a total of 238 parking stalls. There will be
two levels of underground parking with a total of 224 parking stalls. There will also be 14
parallel parking stalls along the west side of New Street to serve guests and visitors.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
The Office zoning district is unique in that it requires development to provide 12% of the gross
building area for designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). In most districts, 12% of the land
area is required. On this site, 12% of the land area would be 8,364 square feet, and 12% of the
gross building area is 20,481 square feet. The plan provides a total of 23,109 square feet of
DORA. This is 13.5% of the gross building area and 33.1% of the lot area.
DORA features: The plan includes a variety of passive and active recreation areas and features.
At ground level, there is a “pocket park” on the south side of the site, with landscaping,
sidewalks, seating areas, and dog walk area. There are also eight raised vegetable garden beds
on the southwest side of the building. Sidewalks are provided along New Street and Wayzata
Boulevard with landscaping and pedestrian scale lighting that provide pedestrian pathways
around the site and connections to the businesses and amenities of the West End development.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
There are three amenity terraces. A first floor terrace includes a water feature (pool), trellises,
gas grill, fire pit, and seating that is accessible from an indoor amenity space. Another first floor
terrace is located off of the lobby and provides seating, a turf activity area, and fire pit. There is
also a sixth floor terrace with seating that is also connected to indoor amenity space.
Building Setbacks
With a PUD, no building setback is required. As defined in the zoning code, the front yard for
this property is on the north side adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard. In most of the West End,
buildings are built close to the property line (approximately 5 feet). One of the criteria for
allowing high density residential dwellings in the Office zoning district is for the building to be
close to the street. In this case, the front yard setback is 14.9 feet at the closest point. Without a
PUD, the Office district would require a front setback of 67.7 feet. A PUD modification is
requested to reduce the front yard setback.
The side setbacks typically required in the Office district are 43 feet and 34 feet. The setbacks in
the proposed plans are reduced to 29.2 on the east and 11.3 on the west (measured to the decks).
PUD modifications are requested for the side yards.
The Office district generally requires a rear setback of 34 feet. The proposed rear setback is 37.7
feet, which meets the requirement.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan is limited due to the building coverage of the site. The landscaping for the
overall West End PUD has been approved, and the plantings for this parcel add to the approved
counts. Both the subject site and the overall West End PUD rely on the alternative landscaping
provisions to satisfy the City Code requirements.
Tree Replacement: The proposed plan will require removal of all the existing trees on the site.
The tree replacement requirement is 148.8 caliper inches. The plan proposes to plant 124 caliper
inches of trees. A tree replacement fee of $2,852 will be due prior to issuance of a building
permit, based on the 2013 fee schedule of $115 per caliper inch to account for the 24.8 caliper
inch shortage.
Counts: City Code requires 158 over-story trees and 1,030 shrubs for this development. The
proposed plan provides 34 over-story trees, 26 ornamental trees (which count as ½ an over-story
tree). The plan also provides 551 shrubs. Therefore, the plan provides 111 fewer over-story
trees and 479 fewer shrubs than required by city code. The shortage of tree and shrub plantings
is balanced with the variety of alternative landscaping features provided, including 554 perennial
plantings.
Alternative Landscaping: A list of alternative landscaping features is detailed under the Designed
Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) section of this report. Of note, this site is part of the overall
West End PUD, which provides additional amenities including sidewalks, benches, pedestrian
lighting, a fountain, arcade, West End Boulevard convertible plaza, Bee Way artwork and plaza,
Aurora Organ artwork, interior atriums in the movie theater and both existing office towers, as
well as transit shelters and bus layover for future transit service on 16th Street.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities
The City Engineering staff reviewed the plans and recommended approval with conditions,
which have been incorporated into the resolution. Staff is confident the remaining details can
and will be addressed during the permitting process.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
The underground garage and existing soil conditions will require export of soils from the
property. The haul route will be limited to collector roads and highways (I-394, TH 100,
Wayzata Boulevard and Park Place Boulevard) and will avoid residential streets.
Waste Storage
The trash will be managed inside the building. Trash containers will be rolled out to New Street
for collection.
Zoning Compliance Table:
The following table lists the standards based on the subject property. The zoning analysis shows
the development complies with the Office zoning district standards, with certain modifications as
allowed with a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Factor
Required/Allowed Proposed Met?
Use Multiple-Family
Residential (with PUD)
Multiple-Family Residential Yes
Lot Area 2.0 acres 1.6 acres
(35.12 acres overall PUD)
Yes
Height
240 feet; None with PUD 77 ft. Yes
Building Materials
Minimum 60% class I 60% class I Yes
Floor Area Ratio 1.5; None with PUD
2.45
(Modification requested)
Yes
Housing Density 50 units per acre; No
maximum with PUD
99 units per acre
Yes
Off-Street Parking
226 spaces 238 spaces Yes
Bicycle Parking
182 stalls 190 stalls Yes
Designed Outdoor
Recreation Area
20,481 sq. ft. 23,109 sq. ft.
Yes
Tree Replacement 148.8 caliper inches 124 caliper inches; plus tree
replacement fee of $2,852
Yes
Landscaping 158 trees 47 trees Yes
1,030 shrubs 551 shrubs
Alternative landscaping to
balance the shortage of tree
and shrub plantings
Garden beds, outdoor seating,
amenity terraces, water feature, turf
activity area, fire pits, gas grill,
sidewalks, dog walk, 554 perennial
plantings
Yards None with PUD;
Office:
Front (north) = 67.7’
Side 1 = 43’
Side 2 = 34’
Rear (south) 34’
Front (north) = 14.9’
Side 1 (east) = 29.2’
Side 2 (west) = 11.3’
Rear (south) = 37.7’
Yes
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
PUD MODIFICATIONS:
The PUD ordinance allows certain zoning standards to be modified. The overall West End PUD
included modifications for yards, parking, and designed outdoor recreation area (DORA). The
Flats at West End also received modifications for floor area ratio, density, and yards. The PUD
modifications requested for the proposed multiple-family residential development include:
Floor Area Ratio
The proposed floor area ratio for the West End Apartments is 2.45. The Office zoning district
limits the floor area ratio to 1.5, except with a PUD.
Housing Density
The proposed housing density is 99 units per acre. The Office District limits the density to 50
units per acre, except with a PUD.
Yards
The front yard is reduced from 67.7 feet to 14.9 feet.
The west side yard is reduced from 34.0 feet to 29.2 feet.
The east side yard is reduced from 43.0 feet to 11.3 feet.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission and City staff find that the development meets the requirements for a
multiple-family dwelling in an Office zoning district with a planned unit development (PUD)
and support the requested modifications.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
ENGINEERING REVIEW MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 13, 2013
TO: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
FROM: Joseph Shamla – Engineering Project Manager
RE: DLC Residential
Plan Review Comments
We have reviewed the plans prepared by MFRA Inc. dated September 12, 2013. Based upon this
review I have the following comments and recommendations:
1. Sheet C2.01 - Existing conditions don’t show existing utilities such as sewer and water
services to building, watermain to on-site hydrants, etc. They need to show existing
utilities and detail which ones are being removed. They also need to show how the
utilities will be disconnected at the main. Restoration will be required within City ROW.
Match existing road section and curb. Please show on the plan the limits of excavation
and how this will be restored. A traffic control plan meeting MUTCD standards and
approved by the City will be required for removing and installing the new services to the
property.
2. Sheet C3.01 – The entrance to the building is lower than Wayzata Blvd. Additional
existing spot elevations should be provided along with proposed spot elevations to ensure
drainage from Wayzata Blvd. does not enter the underground parking. Also, provide
detail regarding the trench drain.
3. Sheet C3.01 – Provide spot elevations for the sidewalk along Wayzata Blvd. to ensure
compliance with ADA standards. Curb ramps must be provided at “New Street” and at
the entrance to the underground parking.
4. Sheet C3.01 – An easement will be required for the drive on the property benefiting the
Flats at West End.
5. Sheet C3.01 – An easement must be provided for “New Street” on the existing property
south of the proposed development.
6. Sheet C3.01 – Remove the generator pad from the drainage and utility easement.
7. Sheet C3.01 – The retaining wall located on the north side of the building must be
removed from the drainage and utility easement. Also, the height of this wall should be
minimized to ensure proper line of site.
8. Sheet C4.01 – The ground water table should be verified with a soils engineer to verify
that the low floor elevation is acceptable for this type of building and so that any issues
related to the ground water table can be resolved. Also, will the underground storage
system be in the water table? This would eliminate the live storage or infiltration.
9. Sheet C4.01 – Provide spot elevations for ramp entering underground parking.
10. Sheet C6.01 - Check if 8” sewer service is adequate to meet plumbing code. Show
manhole at connection to existing sewer.
11. Sheet C6.01 – The storm sewer connecting to Wayzata Blvd. has too tight of an angle and
will require a new manhole on Wayzata Blvd. at the connection.
12. Sheet C9.01 – Provide a detail of the valley gutter locate adjacent to “New Street”.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
13. Sheet 6.01 – Stormwater management plan calculations need to be provided. Provide
rational method calculations to show that the storm sewer has been designed for a 10 year
event. Provide a copy of the calculations used for the water quality requirement. This
must meet NPDES permit requirements as well. Details of the underground infiltration
system must be provided in the plans. Provide calculations for roof drain connections.
14. The drainage system provided is a private system and needs to be maintained by the
apartment complex. A maintenance agreement is needed for the treatment device. The
agreement will be drafted by the City Attorney and recorded against the property. This
will ensure that the stormwater treatment device is properly maintained, or that the City
can maintain if needed and assess the cost back to the property owner.
15. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is required. Provide plan showing appropriate
erosion control devices. An NPDES permit is required.
16. Pedestrian access along all public streets shall be maintained throughout the duration of
construction in accordance with ADA requirements. This will include signing, striping,
detour signing, and any other measures needed to assure compliance and general public
safety.
17. The City of St. Louis Park Utilities Division (952-924-2558) shall be contacted at least
48-hours prior to any water-shut offs, sewer connections, excavations, or any other work
related to the City’s utility system. The contractor shall also be responsible for protecting
the existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer system during construction, including the
cost of removing and cleaning of any debris in the lines both during and after completion
of construction.
18. The mechanical room needs to be sized appropriately to compound meter installation (see
attached meter installation requirements). In the past this has been an issue.
19. The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for snow maintenance on public sidewalks on
Wayzata Blvd.
20. A 5’ sidewalk easement will be required for the sidewalk along Wayzata Blvd. which is
not within the property line.
21. Maintain 2 percent minimum slope in green areas.
22. A right of access must be obtained for the work completed on the neighboring property.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 10
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, 09-064, 10-093,
11-016, and 13-123
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION
NOS. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, 09-064, 10-093, 11-016 AND 13-123
RELATING TO A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
WEST END REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF INTERSTATE 394 AND HIGHWAY 100
The West End Redevelopment Project
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Major Amendment to a Final
Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) for The West End Redevelopment Project located at the
southwest quadrant of Interstate 394 and Highway 100 and legally described as THE SHOPS AT
WEST END.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the effect of the proposed amendment on the
health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the
use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 08-057 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated April 28, 2008 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 08-128 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated October 6,
2008 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-040 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated March 2,
2009 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 09-064 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 4,
2009 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Major Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution No. 10-093 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated September
7, 2010 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a Minor Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution 11-016 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated January 18,
2011 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 11
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
WHEREAS, a Major Amendment to the Final PUD was approved regarding the subject
property pursuant to Resolution 13-123 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 19,
2013, which contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
Final PUD granted by Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-040, 09-064, 10-093, 11-016, and 13-
123 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the
subject property in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 13-31-PUD are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution Nos. 08-057, 08-128, 09-
040, 09-064, 10-093, 11-016, and 13-123 are hereby restated and amended by this resolution
which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property at the
location described above based on the following conditions:
1. The uses on the subject property are limited to retail, service, restaurants, hotel, theater,
and office. The following uses are not allowed: in-vehicle sales and service (drive-
through); motor fuel stations; motor vehicle sales, service and repair; car washes;
currency exchanges; check cashing; pay loan agencies; pawnshops; sexually-oriented
businesses, tattoo shops; gun shops (not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as
part of its sporting goods inventory, guns and ammunition).
2. The final site plan and façade design of the large retail building on Lot 4, Block 1, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END (proposed grocery store) shall require a PUD Minor
Amendment with review by the Planning Commission.
3. The hotel site plans for Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END shall require a
PUD Major Amendment if any variances are requested. If the plan does not require a
variance, the application may be processed as a PUD Minor Amendment and include
review and recommendation of the Planning Commission.
4. The total gross floor area of restaurants shall be limited to 90,820 square feet on the
combination of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
5. The total number of seats in the movie theater shall be limited to 2,700 seats.
6. Tenants in Building 32 shall be limited to Mercantile (Group M) uses as defined in the
2007 Minnesota State Building Code, such as retail or wholesale stores, sales rooms,
department stores, drug stores, markets, etc.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 12
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
7. The portion of the five-level retail parking structure (Building 35) that is within 20 feet of
the Gamble Drive right-of-way shall have a minimum of 60% Class I exterior materials.
The Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits to comply with this requirement.
8. The Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator or their designee(s)
may approve individual tenant/building façade designs administratively or refer proposals
to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration, as City staff deems
necessary.
9. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning Administrator
review and approval. Sign permits are required.
10. Access to the truck courts on the west retail block from Park Place Boulevard shall be
limited to between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m.
11. The access will be controlled from Park Place Boulevard to the truck courts on the west
retail block using a mechanical bollard system and directional signs in the Park Place
Boulevard right-of-way. The Developer shall enter into a Planning Development Contract
with the City of St. Louis Park that addresses this private use of public land.
12. The Developer shall maintain horizontal separation from landscaping (i.e. boulevard
trees) of at least three feet from shallow underground utilities (i.e. fiber optic cable,
private utilities, etc.), and eight feet horizontal separation from deeper underground
utilities (i.e. water, sanitary sewer, etc.).
13. Tree plantings and street furnishings shall be located in a manner that maintains at least
six feet wide clearance space in all boulevard/sidewalk areas for snow removal.
14. The Developer shall amend the Official Exhibits (The Shops at West End Design
Guidelines) to incorporate the following:
a. At pedestrian level, facades on Buildings 12, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32 and 33 shall
be primarily transparent:
1. At least 60% of facades between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first
floor elevation shall consist of pedestrian entrances, display windows or
windows affording views into retail, offices, gallery or lobby space.
The West End Tenant Design Guidelines shall illustrate the portions of the
above referenced buildings subject to this requirement.
2. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum of three feet,
but display of merchandise in this space is allowed. Display windows
may be used to meet the transparency requirement.
b. At pedestrian level (between 3 feet and 7 feet above the first floor elevation),
building facades facing public streets, West End Boulevard, or the pedestrian
arcade shall have no more than 10% of the total window area be glass block,
mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass.
c. No more than 10% of the total window area of any building façade shall have
signs applied to the inside or outside surface of the window. The remaining 90%
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 13
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass that allows views
into and out of the building.
d. Tenants in Buildings 12, 22, 24, 31, and 33 that are located adjacent to
public and/or private street intersections shall locate entrances at or near
the adjacent building corner.
e. Awnings and canopies shall be made of heavy canvas, fabric, metal and/or glass.
Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. Backlit awnings and canopies are
prohibited.
15. A business may use the sidewalk within five feet of its building wall for the following
purposes, provided the business maintains a clear walkway that is at least eight feet wide
along Park Place Boulevard and at least six feet wide along other streets, and provided
the uses do not occur in the public right-of-way unless the City approves an
encroachment agreement in accordance with the City’s Temporary Private Use of Public
Land Policy:
a. Display of merchandise, not to exceed 100 square feet per business;
b. Benches, planters, ornaments, art;
c. Signs permitted in the zoning ordinance; and
d. Outdoor dining. Outdoor dining areas may extend farther than five-feet from the
building wall, provided tables and chairs or other structures maintain the required
horizontal clearance for a walkway between the dining area and other
obstructions, such as trees, poles, and curbs.
16. The Developer shall provide easements and $285,000 for public art to help satisfy the
alternative landscaping requirements. The City and the Developer will develop a public
process to select the artists, artworks and locations.
17. The Developer shall amend Official Exhibits (utility plans) to provide separate domestic
and fire water service lines to the buildings.
18. The developer shall work with the Police Department on the design and construction of
the police substation area in Building 31. In particular, the plan shall provide windows
and doorway on the northeast building elevation along the alley.
19. The developer shall redesign the public restroom entrances in the Building 31 atrium to
have open entrances (no exterior doors to the atrium), similar to typical stadium/movie
theater restroom entrances, as requested by the Police Department.
20. At City of St. Louis Park’s sole discretion, and upon conferring with the property owner,
the property owner shall change the designation of West End Boulevard on-street parking
stalls from short-term customer parking to “pick-up/drop-off only” (or similar
restriction).
21. The applicant shall be responsible to obtain all permits from the City and other agencies.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 14
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
22. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for obtaining a City license for all parking
structures.
23. Tenants shall be responsible for obtaining all City licenses (i.e. grocery store, hotel, etc.).
24. The property owner shall prepare and effectuate traffic management plans that reduce
traffic congestion. The property owner submitted a plan for review and approval of the by
the St. Louis Park and Golden Valley I-394 Joint Task Force. The property owner shall
implement The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) approved by the Travel Demand
Management Joint Task Force prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25. The City and Developer shall set up a monitoring program to determine actual sanitary
sewer flows. Following each phase of the development, sewer flows will be analyzed to
determine if sewer flows exceed Metropolitan Council limits described in the
Metropolitan Council’s letter to the City of St. Louis Park dated December 14, 2006. If
sanitary sewer flows exceed said limits, the Developer shall submit a final design of a
privately owned, privately maintained, temporary sanitary sewer peak flow detention
facilities for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and City of St. Louis
Park approval. The Developer shall construct the said approved system and put it into
operation in the timeframe designated by MCES and City of St. Louis Park, and prior to
City issuance of building permits for additional phases.
26. The Developer shall abide by the City’s water use restrictions and follow State of
Minnesota requirements for low-flow structures. After each phase of the redevelopment,
water usage shall be monitored. If monitoring shows use exceeds 90% of peak capacity,
the Developer shall cooperate with the City to identify citywide and project-specific
measures to increase water treatment capacity and reduce consumption prior to City
issuance of building permits.
27. The north office tower and operations center at 1551 Utica Avenue (Lot 1, Block 2, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the
Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 86-14-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any
conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 86-14-
SP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan and
Lighting Plan; Exhibit B – Grading Plan; Exhibit C – Utilities Plan; Exhibit D –
Landscape Plan; Exhibit E – Building Elevations; Exhibit F – Basement Floor Level
Plan; Exhibit G – Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit H – Second Floor Plan; and Exhibit I –
Typical Floor Plan, as modified by City Development on March 13, 1986. (The floor
plans are included to show general use and configurations only.)
28. The following conditions shall apply to the south office tower at 1600 Utica Avenue (Lot
1, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END):
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the
Official Exhibits from Zoning Application 98-42-PUD and 07-61-PUD. If
there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede.
The following 98-42-PUD Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference
herein: Exhibit A – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Landscape Plan, Exhibit C –
Existing Survey, Exhibit D – Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan,
Exhibit E – Utility Plan, Exhibit F – East Elevations, Exhibit G – North
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 15
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
Elevation, Exhibit H – South Elevation, Exhibit I – West Elevations, Exhibit J –
West Elevation - Parking Ramp, and Exhibit K – Parking Ramp elevation
(south).
b. Parking ramp layouts and site plan shall provide designation of at least 20 bicycle
racks and at least 20 carpool spaces in convenient locations.
c. A covenant shall be recorded on the property which specifies that a minimum
of 4,000 square feet of the atrium shall remain in perpetuity as indoor open
space and available for general “public” use. Said interior atrium space shall be
designed in an aesthetically pleasing and usable way, with landscaping, benches,
and the like. A detailed atrium plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Community Development Director and the Zoning Administrator.
d. The following modifications to ordinance requirements are re-authorized:
1. The floor area ratio for the PUD can be 1.57.
2. The setbacks on Gamble Drive for the parking ramp can be 17 feet.
3. Reduced office building setback along Gamble Drive of 96 feet.
29. The Chili’s restaurant site at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT
WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Applications 91-13-SP and 07-61-PUD. If there is any conflict
between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The following 91-13-SP
Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A – Overall Site Plan,
Exhibit B – Site Plan, Exhibit C – Grading Plan, Exhibit D – Landscape Plan, Exhibit E –
Floor Plan, and Exhibit F and F-1 – Elevations.
3029. The Olive Garden restaurant site at 5235 Wayzata Boulevard (Lot 12, Block 1, THE
SHOPS AT WEST END) shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the
Official Exhibits from Zoning Applications 93-9-CUP, 93-34-CUP and 07-61-PUD. If
there is any conflict between the Official Exhibits, 07-61-PUD shall supersede. The
following 93-9-CUP and 93-34-CUP Official Exhibits are incorporated by reference
herein: Exhibit A-1 – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Utility Plan, Exhibit C-1 – Landscape Plan,
and Exhibit D – Exterior Elevations.
3130. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the Developer and
City that addresses, at a minimum:
1. Conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate;
2. Public use of gathering spaces in the development;
3. Private use of public land
4. Maintenance agreement and/or special service district;
5. Surety in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit for Redeveloper Public
Improvements and landscaping; and
6. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said Planning
Development Contract.
b. The Developer shall provide a surety to the City of St. Louis Park in the form of
an irrevocable letter of credit for 1.10 times the estimated Redeveloper
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 16
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
Public Improvements costs (as defined in the Redevelopment Agreement), and
1.25 times the estimated landscaping costs.
c. The property owner shall pay the applicable Traffic Management Administrative
Fee.
1. The portion of the shopping center subject to this fee is on Lot 2, Block 2,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END. The total fee of $34,633 shall be paid to
the City of St. Louis Park prior to City issuance of building permits.
2. Subsequent phases of the PUD (future hotel and office towers) shall pay
fifty percent of the fee upon submission of a Final PUD Amendment
application, and the remaining fifty percent of the fee upon submission of
a building permit application, for each respective development phase.
3231. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on October 6, 2008 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Application 08-32-PUD, including Exhibits C4B-Site
Layout Plan North, C8A-Utility Plan, C10B-Landscape Street Plan, A11101-
Building 11 Overall Plan, A11111-Building 11 Level 1 Area 1, A111112-
Building 11 Level 1 Area 2, A11401-Building 11 Exterior Elevations, such
documents incorporated by reference herein.
b. Overnight cart storage shall be inside the building.
c. The Developer shall continue to work with City staff through a public process to
select public art and the complete plaza design.
d. The Developer shall submit a site plan and programming plan for the plaza area to
the City for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
e. The building proposal includes graphic art panels in order to enhance the
appearance of the building and pedestrian environment. The Developer shall
submit plans for the graphics on the backlit translucent wall-mounted panels for
review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The panels and/or graphics
shall be changed from time to time and at least biennially. The panel may
include any mosaic, mural, painting or graphic art or combination thereof which is
professionally applied to the panel that does not contain any brand name, product
name, letters of the alphabet spelling or abbreviating the name of any product,
company, profession or business, or any logo, trademark, trade name, or other
commercial message (defined as supergraphics in the City Sign Code and exempt
from the Sign Code provisions). The Developer shall allow use of the panels for
public art. Proposed public art shall be subject to review and approval by the
Developer and building tenant(s).
f. Assent Form and Official Exhibits must be signed by the applicant (or applicant
and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building
permit.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 17
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
g. The sign plan is subject to Community Development Director and Zoning
Administrator review and approval. Sign permits are required.
h. Approval of Building Permits, which may impose additional requirements.
i. A Planning Development Contract between the Developer and City shall be
amended to address, at a minimum:
1. Amended conditions of PUD approval as applicable or appropriate;
2. Public use of the plaza gathering space;
3. Temporary uses of the plaza; and
4. Administrative approval of modifications to the PUD plans.
3332. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on May 4, 2009 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 4, Block 1 and
Lot 2, Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Application 09-07-VAR and 09-08-PUD relating to the
Shops at West End Sign Plan, such documents incorporated by reference herein.
3433. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on September 7, 2010 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating to Lot 3, Block 1,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota:
a. The PUD major amendment is approved for the development of a six-story, 120-
unit apartment building with structured parking to be developed at 5310 16th
Street W, with five off-site parking stalls and 3,136 square feet of the designed
outdoor recreation area provided off-site.
b. The following PUD modifications, in addition to modifications previously
authorized for the overall Shops at West End PUD:
1. Floor area ratio of 3.24.
2. Housing density of 112.6 units per acre.
c. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Applications 10-23-PUD and 10-25-VAR relating to a
shadow variance, including Exhibits A100 Site Plan (revised 01/10/2011), AB101
Lower Level Garage Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A101 First Floor Plan (revised
01/10/2011), A102 Second Floor Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A103 Floors 3-6
Typical Floor Plan (revised 01/10/2011), A400 Exterior Elevations (revised
01/10/2011), A401 Exterior Elevations (revised 01/10/2011), L100 Landscape
Plan (revised 01/10/2011), such documents incorporated by reference herein.
d. The five (5) proposed off-site parking stalls shall be protected by an irrevocable
covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney. A certified copy of the
recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60 days
after approval.
e. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
1. The owner/applicant shall sign an Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 18
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
2. All necessary permits must be obtained.
3. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate
development, construction and City representatives.
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
1. Plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator
to ensure that all proposed utilities, public access points and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances
and City policies.
2. The applicant shall pay park dedication and trail dedication fees.
3. To ensure construction of the landscaping and the cleaning of public
streets during construction, a financial guarantee shall be provided in the
amount of 125% of the cost of the landscaping materials. The
performance guarantee shall be in the form of cash escrow or letter of
credit. The financial guarantee will be refunded upon project
completion, however, a 25% will be retained for one year after
installation to ensure the plants have survived the warranty period.
4. The planned installation of any mechanical equipment shall include
means to ensure it is fully screened from off-site view.
5. The proposed off-site parking facilities and shared parking facilities shall
be protected by an irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City
Attorney. The applicant shall submit a certified copy of the recorded
document to the Zoning Administrator.
g. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
2. The applicant shall pay park dedication and trail dedication fees.
3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighborhood properties.
4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
5. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in
a public street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the
determination by the Director of Public Works that appropriate safety
measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
h. Prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit the
following shall be completed:
1. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped in accordance with the signed
Official Exhibits.
2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed
Official Exhibits.
3. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with
the signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated
that all such equipment is fully screened from off-site views. To protect
the health, safety and welfare of the community, the painting of
mechanical equipment shall not be considered screening.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 19
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
i. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed
within 48 hours.
3534. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on January 18, 2011 to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions with amendments to conditions relating to Lot 3, Block 1,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
3635. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 19, 2013, to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions with an amendment to condition #4 relating to the total
building area of restaurants allowed on the combination of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lot 2,
Block 2, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant and property owner shall sign the
Official Exhibits.
36. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on October 7, 2013, to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions relating Lot 1, Block 1,
THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
a. The PUD major amendment is approved for the development of a six-story, 158-
unit multiple-family dwelling with structured parking at 5245 Wayzata
Boulevard.
b. PUD modifications are approved to allow:
1. Floor area ratio of 2.5.
2. Housing density of 99 units per acre.
3. Front (north) yard of 14.9 feet.
4. Side (west) yard of 29.2 feet
5. Side (east) yard of 11.3 feet.
c. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the Official
Exhibits from Zoning Application 13-31-PUD, such documents incorporated by
reference herein.
d. The developer shall comply with the conditions outlined in the City Engineering
memorandum dated September 13, 2013.
e. Agreement for public access across “New Street” shall be protected by an
irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney.
f. A public sidewalk easement will be required over the proposed sidewalk along
Wayzata Boulevard.
g. Ingress/egress agreements across New Street and the “hammerhead” maneuvering
space between Lot 1 and Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, shall be
protected by an irrevocable covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney.
h. The development specifications shall require installation and maintenance of a
high-speed overhead door to reduce the wait time for vehicles entering the garage.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 20
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
i. No outside storage is permitted. Incidental outside storage shall be removed
within 48 hours.
j. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
1. The owner/applicant shall sign an Assent Form and the Official Exhibits.
2. The agreements required by conditions 36e. and 36g. shall be executed.
3. Developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City that
addresses the conditions of approval and performance guarantees for
public and exterior site improvements. The Mayor and City Manager are
authorized to execute said Planning Development Contract.
4. All necessary permits must be obtained.
5. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and City representatives.
k. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met:
1. Plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator to
ensure that all proposed utilities, public access points and construction
documents conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances
and City policies.
2. Tree replacement fees shall be paid.
3. Park dedication and trail dedication fees shall be paid. Fees will be based
on the fee schedule at the time the building permits are issued and will be
pro-rated based on any previous fees paid based on the commercial use of
the property.
4. Developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City that
addressed the conditions of approval and performance guarantees for
public and exterior site improvements.
l. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be
no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
weekdays, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
2. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto
neighborhood properties.
3. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as
necessary.
4. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a
public street. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the
determination by the Director of Public Works that appropriate safety
measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety.
5. Pedestrian access along all public streets shall be maintained throughout
the duration of construction in accordance with ADA requirements. This
will include signing, striping, detour signing, and any other measures
needed to assure compliance and general public safety.
m. Prior to the issuance of any permanent occupancy permit the following shall be
completed:
1. Fire lanes shall be signed and striped as required by the Fire Marshal.
2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be in accordance with the signed Official
Exhibits.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 21
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
3. Exterior building improvements shall be completed in accordance with the
signed Official Exhibits and approved materials and colors.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be installed and it shall be demonstrated
that all such equipment is fully screened from off-site views.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 7, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Page 22
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential
EXCERPTS OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 18, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Dennis Morris, Richard Person,
Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Larry Shapiro, Charlie Dixon (youth member)
B. Major Amendment to PUD for Multiple-family Residential-The West End
Location: 5245 Wayzata Boulevard
Applicant: DLC Residential
Case No.: 13-13-PUD
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report.
David Graham, ESG Architects, spoke about design, building materials, the Designed
Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA), and project amenities.
Commissioner Person commented with this development and West End Flats, there could
be a number of children and there is no playground in the DORA and no public parks
near the West End. He said this could become an issue in the West End area.
Mr. Graham responded that some of those features could be integrated into the pocket
park and as part of the second phase a community park could be created at 16th and Utica.
Commissioner Morris said the DORA presented is an adult recreational area. A
community playground should be part of the area at some point in the future.
Commissioner Carper asked if the new street would be private or public.
Mr. Graham said it would be a private street with public access.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris stated the Fire Dept. will probably require a fire lane on the new
street at the second phase of the development.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment
to the West End Final PUD to allow multiple-family residential at 5245 Wayzata
Boulevard subject to conditions. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the
motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
1
SITEPLAN
September 18, 2013 Existing Homewood SuitesExisting
Olive Garden
Parking
Existing
Olive Garden
Parking
Existing
Olive GardenNEW STREETPOCKET PARK
RAISED GARDENBEDS
Existing Flats at West EndProposed Multi-family158 UnitsSCALE: 1” = 60’ - 0”
Design Principles
-Extend the Fabric and Vitality of the Shops at West
End Mixed Use Neighborhood within a coherent master
plan featuring streetscapes, green courtyards and park
areas
-Siteplan design based on careful building placement
and landscape features relative to surrounding
adjacent uses including Flats at West End,
Homewood Suites and the Olive Garden
-Replace current empty Chili’s site with a 158 unit,
high quality, residential community featuring full spec-
trum of types including 3 bedroom units
-Phase 1 on Chili’s site allows new Utica Blvd time to
be constructed in the future
-Key Site Design Feature- creation of a vibrant street
known as “New Street” as an initial and long range fo-
cal point for DLC Residential
-Transit Oriented design
-Bus service:
Metrotransit Line 649 is a commuter line with 5
stops each morning and evening with stations just
steps from the proposed development. The 604 lo-
cal line runs to Excelsior and Grand throughout the
day as well as the 9 local line within St. Louis Park
and Minneapolis from these same stations.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 23
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
2
SCALE: 1” = 60’ - 0”September 18, 2013 Existing Homewood SuitesExisting Olive GardenNEW STREETPOCKET PARK Existing Olive Garden ParkingExisting Flats at West EndProposed Multi-family158 UnitsNew Street
Precedent
RAISED GARDENBEDS
“New Street”
-New Street provides:
-A connection between Wayzata
Blvd and 16th
-A pleasant and vibrant pedestrian
connection to the Shops at West
End
-A landscaped, publicly accessible
street with curbside parking
-A street façade lined with town
homes, front porches, main lobby
and entrance terrace along the
streetscape
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 24
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
3
SCALE: 1” = 60’ - 0”September 18, 2013 Existing Homewood SuitesExisting Olive GardenNew StreetPOCKET PARK Existing Olive Garden ParkingExisting Flats at West EndProposed Multi-family158 UnitsPocket Park
Precedent
RAISED GARDENBEDS
Pocket Park
and Landscape Features
-Pocket Park with outdoor seating
areas, a dog walk, pedestrian side-
walks connecting to surrounding
destinations including ample trees
and plantings
-Amenity terrace including a water
feature, seating and lounging areas,
outdoor grilling, and firepits
-Activity terrace for use by families
and residents
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 25
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
4
September 18, 2013
RAISED GARDENBEDSExisting Homewood SuitesExisting Olive GardenNew StreetExisting Olive Garden ParkingExisting Flats at West EndProposed Multi-family158 UnitsPOCKET PARK
Raised Garden Beds
Precedent
SCALE: 1” = 60’ - 0”
Raised Garden Beds
-Raised planters for residential
community to grow vegetables and
flowers in dedicated garden beds
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 26
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
5
September 18, 2013
MASSING STUDY - PHASE 1
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 27
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
6
September 18, 2013
MASSING STUDY - PHASE 1
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 28
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL5245 Wayzata Blvd.6August 5, 2013675((76&$3(3+$6(City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 29
WEST END - WAYZATA BLVDDLC RESIDENTIAL
5245 Wayzata Blvd.
12
September 6, 2013
Alternative Landscape/Community Gardens/
Pocket Park
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family Residential Page 30
41' - 0"337' - 0"Room Type Legend1 BED1 BED + DEN2 BED3 BEDAMENITYLEASINGLOBBYSTUDIOEXISTINGSERVICE DOOR(WEST END FLATS)55' - 4 15/16"2,643 SFAMENITY895 SFLOBBY686 SFLEASING1,116 SF2 BED1,117 SF2 BED737 SF1 BED1,115 SF2 BED700 SF1 BED735 SF1 BED735 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED1,122 SF2 BED1,089 SF2 BED765 SF1 BED1,144 SF2 BED1,159 SF2 BED1,020 SF1 BED + DEN700 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED1,116 SF2 BED517 SFSTUDIO737 SF1 BED861 SF1 BED1,083 SF2 BED1,365 SF3 BED10' - 0"5' - 0"120' - 0"WATER FEATURERAISEDGARDENBEDSPOCKET PARKAREA WELLGRILLFIREPITUNIT TERRACEUNIT TERRACEUNIT TERRACEDOG WALK(SHARED W/ FLATSFIREPITTURFACTIVITY SPACETUNITTERRACESPLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - 5245 WAYZATA BLVDLEVEL 1September 18, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTH11City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 31
569 SFSTUDIO1,122 SF1 BED + DEN1,116 SF2 BED1,117 SF2 BED737 SF1 BED1,115 SF2 BED700 SF1 BED735 SF1 BED735 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED1,122 SF2 BED1,089 SF2 BED540 SFSTUDIO540 SFSTUDIO770 SF1 BED1,146 SF2 BED1,159 SF2 BED1,020 SF1 BED + DEN700 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED1,116 SF2 BED1,126 SF2 BED573 SFSTUDIO517 SFSTUDIO737 SF1 BED974 SF1 BED + DEN1,083 SF2 BED1,365 SF3 BEDRoom Type Legend1 BED1 BED + DEN2 BED3 BEDSTUDIOPLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - 5245 WAYZATA BLVDTYPICAL LEVELSeptember 18, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTH12City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 32
1,274 SF2 BED1,080 SF2 BED776 SF1 BED573 SFAMENITY869 SF1 BED569 SFSTUDIO1,121 SF1 BED + DEN737 SF1 BED1,114 SF2 BED700 SF1 BED735 SF1 BED735 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED1,122 SF2 BED1,089 SF2 BED770 SF1 BED1,020 SF1 BED + DEN700 SF1 BED700 SF1 BED1,116 SF2 BED517 SFSTUDIO737 SF1 BED974 SF1 BED + DEN1,083 SF2 BED1,365 SF3 BEDPRIVATE TERRACEPRIVATE TERRACEAMENITYTERRACERoom Type Legend1 BED1 BED + DEN2 BED3 BEDAMENITYSTUDIOPLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - 5245 WAYZATA BLVDLEVEL 6September 18, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTH13City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 33
40,440SFPARKINGMAUELECTRASHBIKESTORAGE18' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"25' - 0"25' - 0"LOADINGPLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - 5245 WAYZATA BLVDP1September 18, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTH14City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 34
40,440SFPARKING3012298261225' - 6"25' - 0"
22' - 0"36' - 0"22' - 0"25' - 0"PLANNORTHScale: 1" = 30'-0"West End - 5245 WAYZATA BLVDP2September 18, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTH15City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 35
AMENITY TERRACE(LEVEL 1)AMENITY TERRACE(LEVEL 1)ROOFTOP DECK(ROOF OF LVL 5)DORA:TOTAL SITE SF: 69707 SF12% DORA REQ'D BY CODE: 69707 SF X .12 = 8364 SFSt. Louis Park Zoning Code; Definitions Section 36-4:Designed Outdoor Recreational Area means designed outdoor spaceintended for passive or active recreation accessible and suited to the needs of residents and/or employees...Amenity Terrace/Pool Deck at Grade: (excluding private walk-out unit terraces)Walk-up Unit Front Yards (excluding private porches)Sidewalks/PathsLandscape around building footprint (excluding drive lanes, loading areas and area wells)GRADE LEVEL DORA: 22359 SF PROVIDED8364 SF DORA REQ'D BY CODERooftop Deck at Level 6: 750 sfGRAND TOTAL DORA: 23109 SF PROVIDED8364 SF DORA REQ'D BY CODEPLANNORTHScale: As indicatedWest End - 5245 WAYZATA BLVDDORA EXHIBITSeptember 18, 20135245 Wayzata BlvdTRUENORTH16City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 36
1876.37CP 12880.27CP 215000880.25CP.CHK 215001878.55CP.CHK 31715091880.25CP.CHK 215460880.27CP.CHK 215552880.26CP.CHK 23882.52CP 315553880.28CP.CHK 215776876.42CP.CHK 14880.18CP 413"LOC13"LOC9"MAP13"LOC35'SPR35'SPR30'SPR12"APP10"LOC12"APP8"LOC11"APP9"APP12"LOC8"APP8"APP11"APP7"APP51878.49CP FDCP31710881.96CP MFRA CP1011878.41CP MFRA CP108"APP10"ASH20'SPR12"ASH11"ASH11"ASH30'SPR25'SPR13"ASH11"APP11"APP16TH STREETWAYZATA BLVD. UTICA AVE. SOUTHLOT 1LOT 2B L O C K 1 Sep 12, 2013 - 11:21am - User:234 L:\PROJECTS\DLC19571\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\19571-C2.01-EXST.dwgC2.01EXISTINGCONDITIONSPLANPRELIMINARYSCALE IN FEET030ClientProjectLocationDateSubmittal / RevisionNo.CertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved: Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issue:ESGARCHITECTS500 WASHINGTON AVE. S. #1080MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415DLCRESIDENTIALST. LOUIS PARK5245 WAYZATA BLVDST. LOUIS PARK, MNBCWCKJXX/XXPROJECT PHASE08/05/2013ADLC19571PRELIMINARYA 09/12/13 EPF CITY COMMENTS1. The bearing system is based on the east line of Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END is assumed to bear North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East.2. The vertical datum is based on NGVD29.BENCHMARK #1MNDOT 2789AY, located in Golden Valley in railing at southeast corner of Vernon Xenia Bridge No. 27747. Elev.=895.89BENCHMARK #2Top Nut of Hydrant located in the Northwesterly corner of subject property. Elev.=878.593. Subject property's address are 5245 Wayzata Blvd and 5235 Wayzata Blvd, its property identification numbers are 30-029-24-32-0019 and30-029-24-32-0020 respectively.FOUND MONUMENTSET MONUMENTMARKED LS 47481ELECTRIC METERLIGHTSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINFLARED END SECTIONELECTRIC TRANSFORMERAIR CONDITIONERGUY ANCHORHANDICAP STALLUTILITY POLEPOSTSIGNTELEPHONE PEDESTALGAS METEREASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERESTRICTED ACCESSBUILDING LINEBUILDING CANOPYCONCRETE CURBBITUMINOUS SURFACECONCRETE SURFACELANDSCAPE SURFACEDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREEOVERHEAD WIRECHAIN LINK FENCEIRON FENCEWIRE FENCEWOOD FENCELEGENDSURVEY NOTESDescription from title commitment:Parcel 1Lot 1, Block 1, The Shops At West End, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Torrens PropertyTorrens Certificate No. 1222613Parcel 2Lot 2, Block 1, The Shops At West End, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Torrens PropertyTorrens Certificate No. 1222614Referencing Title Commitment No. NCS-587530-CHI2, dated December 27, 2012, that First American Title Insurance Company has provided us, thefollowing comments on easements etc., that the property is subject to in Schedule B, Section 2 thereof using the same numbering system as in saidSection 2. Exception Items No's. 1-9, 11-24 and 26 are not Survey related items.10. Easements for drainage and utilities purposes as shown on the recorded plat of The Shops At West End, recorded May 29, 2008, as Document No.4500651. (Parcels 1 and 2) Easement is shown on survey.13. Terms, conditions, easements, restrictions, covenants and conditions as contained in the Declaration dated October 18, 2007, recorded October 31,2007, as Document No. 4441082. Easement does not affect subject property.25. Terms and conditions of Cross Easement Agreement , recorded October 3, 1991 as Document No. 2206979. (Parcel 1) Easement is shown on survey.27. Easement for electric transmission and distribution line system purposes together with the right of access and any incidental rights in favor of Northern State Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy as contained in the Underground Electric Distribution Easement, datedMarch 23, 2010, recorded April 9, 2010, as Document No. 4744400. (Parcel 2) Easement is shown on survey.SUBJECT PROPERTY3. The subject property lies within Flood Plain Zone X, per FEMA, FIRM Map No. 27053C0353E dated 9/2/2004.4. The gross area of the subject property is:Lot 1: 1.600 Acres or 69,716 Square FeetLot 2: 1.946 Acres or 84,781 Square Feet6a. The zoning information has not been provided by the insurer.7a. The buildings and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall.9. The parking areas and striping on the subject property are shown.Parking Stalls Lot 1Lot 2TotalStandard Stalls 115 158 273Handicapped Stalls 3 6 911. Underground utilities are per a combination of the following:a. Observed evidenceThe surveyor makes no guarantees that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned. Utilityinformation shown hereon, if any, is a compilation of this map information and those visible utilities that were located during the survey field work.The surveyor further does not warrant that the underground utilities shown hereon, if any, are in the exact location as indicated, although he doescertify that they are located as accurately as possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically located the underground utilities.Pursuant to MS 216.D contact Gopher State One Call at (651-454-0002) prior to any excavation.13. The names of adjoining owners of platted lands are shown on the survey."TABLE A" NOTESCity Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 37
ADCBEGH16TH STREETWAYZATA BLVD. UTICA AVE. SOUTH Sep 12, 2013 - 11:21am - User:234 L:\PROJECTS\DLC19571\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\19571-C3.01-SITE.dwgC3.01SITE PLANRegistration No. Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc.,Plymouth, MN office.XXXXXBrad C. WilkeningPRELIMINARYA. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.B. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. BACK OF CURB IS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY ONLY.C. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.D. ALL PARALLEL PARKING STALLS TO BE 8'-6" IN WIDTH AND 23' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED.E. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS ANDDIMENSIONS OF EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDINGUTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.F. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PYLON SIGN DETAILSG. ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUMLONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSSSLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALLOR ACCESS ISLE SHALL BE 2.08% (1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THEGRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE ORBITUMINOUS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS ADISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT.SCALE IN FEET030LEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSAWCUT LINENUMBER OF PARKINGSTALLS PER ROWSIGNPIPE BOLLARDSTANDARD DUTYASPHALT PAVINGHEAVY DUTYASPHALT PAVINGCONCRETE PAVINGPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDKEY NOTEDEVELOPMENT NOTESKEY NOTESWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEA. BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.B. B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.C. B-618 6CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER.D. CONCRETE APRONE. FLAT CURB SECTION.F. ACCESSIBLE RAMP.G. UNDERGROUND PARKING LIMIT.H. GENERATOR AND ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER.ClientProjectLocationDateSubmittal / RevisionNo.CertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved: Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issue:ESGARCHITECTS500 WASHINGTON AVE. S. #1080MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415DLCRESIDENTIALST. LOUIS PARK5245 WAYZATA BLVDST. LOUIS PARK, MNBCWCKJAAAXX/XXPROJECT PHASE08/05/2013DLC19571Registration No. Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc.,Plymouth, MN office.08/05/2013XXXXXBrad C. WilkeningPRELIMINARYAREAGROSS SITE AREASETBACKS- BUILDINGFRONT YARDREAR YARDSIDE 1SIDE 2SETBACKS-PARKINGFRONT YARDREAR YARDSIDE YARDPARKING SUMMARY PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:BIKE PARKING REQUIRED:BIKE PARKING PROVIDED:PARKING SPACE SIZE REQUIREMENT:PARALLEL PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT:PARKING DRIVE AISLE REQUIREMENT:DELIVERY ACCESS DRIVE ISLE:PARKING SPACE SIZE PROVIDED:PARALLEL PARKING SPACE SIZE PROVIDED:MINIMUM LOT SIZEZONINGEXISTING ZONINGPROPOSED ZONINGBUILDING REQUIREMENTSMAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIOMAXIMUM FLOOR AREAMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTDORAREQUIRED: (0.12 TIMES THE GFA)PROVIDED:DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY1.60 AC +/- 67'8" , MIN34 FEET, MIN 43 FEET, MIN34 FEET, MIN 5 FEET, MIN5 FEET, MIN 5 FEET, MIN221 STALLS 238 STALLS182 SPACES190 SPACES8.5' X 18'8.5'X23'25' TWO WAY15' ONE WAY8.5' X 18'8.5 X 23'NONE O- OFFICE O- OFFICE 1.5 20 STORIES OR 240 FEET(170,673 GFA)x(0.12)=20,481 sf23,109 sf (0.53 ac.)POCKET PARK & STREETSCAPE INCLUDEDPATIO AMENITY AREA NOT INCLUDEDCity Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 38
16TH STREETWAYZATA BLVD. UTICA AVE. SOUTHFF=885.0881.5882.0883.0881.6880.5876.1876.6876.6881.1881.7882.1882.4883.1884.8881.5881.5881.4882.5 Sep 12, 2013 - 11:21am - User:234 L:\PROJECTS\DLC19571\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\19571-C4.01-GRDE.dwgC4.01GRADING PLANRegistration No. Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc.,Plymouth, MN office.XXXXXBrad C. WilkeningPRELIMINARYClientProjectLocationDateSubmittal / RevisionNo.CertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved: Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issue:ESGARCHITECTS500 WASHINGTON AVE. S. #1080MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415DLCRESIDENTIALST. LOUIS PARK5245 WAYZATA BLVDST. LOUIS PARK, MNBCWCKJXX/XXPROJECT PHASE08/05/2013ADLC19571Registration No. Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc.,Plymouth, MN office.08/05/2013XXXXXBrad C. WilkeningPRELIMINARYA 09/12/13 EPF CITY COMMENTSA. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTEGUTTER GRADE.B. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATER DRAINS AWAY FROMCURB. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER IN” CURB.C. ALL GRADIENT ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20),EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANYDIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE IN 2.08% (1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ANDVERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THEFIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT.D. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT “THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITYQUALITY LEVEL ____________. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02TITLED “STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA”. THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORECOMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA AT1-800-252-1166). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALLDAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALLUTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THEPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.E. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIESDURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYDAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT.F. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THECONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OFALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLYAND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCTCONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THEADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILSENGINEER.A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY:COMPANY: ADDRESS: PHONE: DATED: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT.H. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE DEWATERING AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION.I. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREASUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THETEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BYTHE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA AREUNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE SOILS ENGINEER.J. REPLACE ALL SUBGRADE SOIL DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAVE BECOME UNSUITABLE AND WILL NOTPASS A TEST ROLL. REMOVE UNSUITABLE SOIL FROM THE SITE AND IMPORT SUITABLE SOIL AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOTHE OWNER.K. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THEMOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.N. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ONTHE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESSTOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 4 INCHES. RESPREADTOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 INCHES.O. FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OFGRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIEDTOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCHPOINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENTCONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC ORERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'SOPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THENEW WORK.P. TOLERANCES1. THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOTABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.2. THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.10 FOOTABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.3. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.4. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIREDELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.5. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.R. AFTER THE SITE GRADING IS COMPLETED, IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLTRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLEMATERIAL TO THE SITE.962.5X962.5X902SPOT ELEVATIONCONTOURRIP RAPOVERFLOW ELEV.SCALE IN FEET030CURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDLEGENDWETLAND LIMITSTREELINESTORM SEWER902SOIL BORINGS1042.56ST 5GRADING NOTESDRAINTILECity Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 39
16TH STREETWAYZATA BLVD. UTICA AVE. SOUTHSTORMTECH SC-740 - 1371 CF STORAGESTORMTECH SC-740 - 3168 CF STORAGECB-101 RE=881.50 IE=875.74CBMH-102 RE=883.10 IE=875.50 W IE=875.50 NW IE=878.00 NSTMH-107 RE=877.60 IE=871.50 NWIE=871.50 SIE=874.00 NECBMH-202 RE=879.20 IE=873.47 NYOPLASTAREADRAIN(TYP)26 LF - 12"RCP @ 1.00%ROOF DRAINCONNECTION - SEEMECHANICAL120 LF - 12"RCP @ 0.54%80 LF - 12"RCP @ 0.54%80 LF - 12"RCP @ 1.19%80 LF - 15"RCP @ 1.19%ROOF DRAINCONNECTION - SEEMECHANICAL29 LF - 18"RCP @ 0.54%CBMH-103 RE=880.79 IE=874.85CBMH-104 RE=879.63 IE=874.42CBMH-105 RE=878.30 IE=873.99CBMH-106RE=876.90IE=873.56CONNECT TO EXISTINGCBMH-201 RE=878.90 IE=875.60109 LF - 12"RCP @ 1.0%105 LF - 12"RCP @ 2.03%92 LF - 12"RCP @ 2.03%RE=876.50IE=871.60REMOVE EXISTING CBSTRUCTURES ANDREPLACE WITH 48"MANHOLE8" FIRE SERVICE6" DOMESTIC SERVICE33 LF - 8" PVCSDR 26 @ 3.00%IE=861.87CONNECT TOEXISTING SEWER MAINCONNECT TO EXISTING IE=873.63REPLACE EXISTING MANHOLEW/ 48" STRUCTURE RE=878.4 IE=874.88 LF - 12"RCP @ 1.95% NYOPLASTAREADRAIN(TYP)TRENCH DRAIN - 01RE=874.90IE=873.9027 LF - 8"RCP @ 1.00%REMOVE EXISTINGMANHOLE Sep 12, 2013 - 11:22am - User:234 L:\PROJECTS\DLC19571\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\19571-C6.01-UTIL.dwgC6.01UTILITY PLANRegistration No. Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc.,Plymouth, MN office.XXXXXBrad C. WilkeningPRELIMINARYClientProjectLocationDateSubmittal / RevisionNo.CertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved: Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issue:ESGARCHITECTS500 WASHINGTON AVE. S. #1080MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415DLCRESIDENTIALST. LOUIS PARK5245 WAYZATA BLVDST. LOUIS PARK, MNBCWCKJXX/XXPROJECT PHASE08/05/2013ADLC19571Registration No. Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at MFRA, Inc.,Plymouth, MN office.08/05/2013XXXXXBrad C. WilkeningPRELIMINARYA 09/12/13 EPF CITY COMMENTSA. THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATIONS" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERSASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALLOBTAIN A COPY OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS.1. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE TO CITY REQUIREMENTS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN, TURN OFF, INTERFERE WITH, OR ATTACH ANY PIPE ORHOSE TO OR TAP WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TODO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED ORUNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THE LIABILITY OF THECONTRACTOR3. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATERMAINAND SEWER MAIN (BUILDING, STORM AND SANITARY) CROSSINGS.B. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN.1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.2. ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3. ALL WATERMAIN TO BE DUCTILE IRON - CLASS 52, WITH 7.5 FEET MINIMUM COVER.4. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WITH R-4 JOINTS, ANDRUBBER GASKETS.C. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS ANDDIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULE, EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDINGDIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.D. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OFEXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITYCOMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATIONIS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THEAPPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUESTEXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TORELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSSHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE LOCATIONS OF SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THECONTRACTOR, BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 454-0002.E. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TOADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THECONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENTPROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT.F. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTEDCONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLEFOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURINGPERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BELIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TOCONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDEDTO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON ORNEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.G. ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY UTILITYCONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN KIND. SODDED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD.H. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN ANDLIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSTANDARDS.I. ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATIONFOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED ASREQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE UTILITY BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORCOORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER.A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY:COMPANY: ___________________________________________ADDRESS: ____________________________________________PHONE: _______________________________________________DATED: _______________________________________________THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS SOILS REPORT.J. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREETAND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLETRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OFTHE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILSENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET ORPARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.K. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT 2 COPIES OF SHOP DRAWINGS FOR MANHOLE AND CATCHBASIN STRUCTURES TO ______________. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW 5 WORKING DAYS FORSHOP DRAWING REVIEW.L. THE CONTRACTOR AND THEIR SUPPLIER SHALL DETERMINE THE MINIMUM DIAMETER REQUIREDFOR EACH STORM SEWER STRUCTURE.TELEPHONEELECTRICGAS LINEFORCEMAIN (SAN.)EASEMENTWATERMAINSANITARY SEWEREXISTINGPROPOSEDSTORM SEWERCURB & GUTTERDRAINTILESCALE IN FEET030LEGENDUTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTESCity Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 40
LOT 1 Sep 12, 2013 - 11:23am - User:234 L:\PROJECTS\DLC19571\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\19571-L1.01 LAND.dwgL1.01SITELANDSCAPEPLANPRELIMINARYSCALE IN FEET030ClientProjectLocationDateSubmittal / RevisionNo.CertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved: Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issue:ESGARCHITECTS500 WASHINGTON AVE. S. #1080MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415DLCRESIDENTIALST. LOUIS PARK5245 WAYZATA BLVDST. LOUIS PARK, MNBCWCKJXX/XXPROJECT PHASE08/05/2013ADLC19571PRELIMINARYRegistration No.Date:I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPEARCHITECT under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blueink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy ofthis survey which is available upon request at MFRA,Inc., Plymouth, MN office.08/05/1345071James A. KalkesA 09/12/13 EPF CITY COMMENTSCITY LANDSCAPE CODEx158 UNIT COMPLEXxLOT PERIMITER1,145LFxBUILDING LIVABLE AREA 170,673SFxBUILDING PARKING AREA 83,880SFTOTAL 251,553SFxx1 CANOPY TREE PER UNIT158 TREESxx6 SHRUBS PER 1,000SF (6*(170,673 BLDG SF/1000)) 1,026 SHRUBS OR/ GREATER OF THE TWOxx6 SHRUBS PER 50 LF(6*(1145LF/50)) 138 SHRUBSxTREE REMOVALxxTOTAL TREES REMOVED IN CA180.5xxTOTAL SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE IN CA 180.5xx((180.5/180.5)-0.20)X 1.5 X 180.5 = 216.6 DBHREPLACEMENT(72 - 3" TREES)TREES / SHRUBS PROVIDEDxOVERSTORY TREES44xUNDERSTORY TREES22xSHRUBS 200BOTANICAL NAMEDECIDUOUS TREESKEYCOMMON NAME2.5" BB 16SIZEROOTQTY.2.5" BB4Gleditsia triacanthos SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST2.5" BB 11Celtis occidentalisHACKBERRYvar. inermis 'Shademaster'HLBLHBTilia americana 'Boulevard' BOULEVARD LINDENSTRAIT LEADER NO "V" CROTCH2.5" BB 3Acer saccharumSUGAR MAPLESMORNAMENTAL TREESAUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 1.5" BB 11Amelanchier x grandiflora'Autumn Brilliance'SBSTRAIT LEADERNO "V" CROTCHSPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE1.5" BB 15Malus x 'Spring Snow'SSQUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIESSHOWN ON THE PLAN.LANDSCAPE LEGEND15'50'INSTALLHEIGHTMATUREHEIGHT15'50'15' 60'14' 55'8' 20-25'8' 25-30'NORTH COURTYARD2L1.01SCALE 1" = 10'SOUTH COURTYARD3L1.01SCALE 1" = 10'LANDSCAPE PLAN1L1.01City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 41
Sep 12, 2013 - 11:24am - User:234 L:\PROJECTS\DLC19571\dwg\Civil\Preliminary\19571-L1.01 LAND.dwgL1.02SITELANDSCAPEDETAILSPRELIMINARYClientProjectLocationDateSubmittal / RevisionNo.CertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved: Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issue:ESGARCHITECTS500 WASHINGTON AVE. S. #1080MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415DLCRESIDENTIALST. LOUIS PARK5245 WAYZATA BLVDST. LOUIS PARK, MNBCWCKJXX/XXPROJECT PHASE08/05/2013ADLC19571PRELIMINARYRegistration No.Date:I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPEARCHITECT under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blueink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy ofthis survey which is available upon request at MFRA,Inc., Plymouth, MN office.08/05/1345071James A. KalkesA 09/12/13 EPF CITY COMMENTSForsythia 'Sunrise'SUNRISE FORSYTHIA#5CONT.TEC3PLANT 18" O.C.Hemerocallis 'Stella d'Oro' STELLA D'ORO DAYLILY#1CONT.SDD72Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' DWARF BURNING BUSH#5CONT.DBB88SHRUBSBOTANICAL NAMEKEYCOMMON NAMESIZEROOTQTY.REMARKSPERENNIALSNepeta x faasenii 'Walker's Low' WALKER'S LOW CATMINT#1CONT.WLC68 PLANT 2' O.C.Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #5CONT.GLS64#5CONT.SVJ96#5CONT.SMS24Hemerocallis 'Baja' BAJA DAYLILY #1CONT.BDL93PLANT 18" O.C.Hemerocallis 'Pardon Me' PARDON ME DAYLILY#1CONT.PMD30PLANT 18" O.C.#5CONT.67Spiraea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer'ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA#5CONT.66AWS#5CONT.4DBWJuniperious Horizoantalis 'Savin' SAVIN JUNIPERSalix purpurea 'Nana' DWARF BLUE ARCTIC WILLOWSpiraea nipponica 'Snowmound' SNOWMOUND SPIREACalamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS#1CONT.KFG198 PLANT 2' O.C.QUANTITIES SHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.Sporobolus heterolepisPRAIRIE DROPSEED#1CONT.PDS93PLANT 2' O.C.Viburnum trilobum 'Bailey Compact'COMPACT AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH#5CONT.BCA93LANDSCAPE LEGENDSyringa x "Bailsugar'SUGAR PLUM LILAC #5CONT.SPF65#5CONT.10GOLD FLAME SPIREASpiraea x bumalda 'Gold Flame'1.5'4'x4'INSTALLHEIGHTMATUREHEIGHT1' 3'x4'1'3'x4'1'2.5'x5'1.5' 4'x4'1.5'3'x4'1.5'3'x4'1'3'x4'1.5'3'x4'1.5'5'x5'1.5'4'x4'6"4'x2'6"2'x2'6" 2'x1.5'6"1.5'x1.5'6"1.5'x1.5'6"1'x1'MYSSpiraea thunbergii 'Ogon' MELLOW YELLOW SPIREAGFSLonicera x xylosteoides 'Miniglobe' MINIGLOBE HONEYSUCKLE#5CONT.MGH11.5' 4'x4'N-EAST DETAIL1L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'S-EAST DETAIL2L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'NW DETAIL5L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'NORTH DETAIL6L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'SOUTH EAST DETAIL7L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'N-WEST DETAIL3L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'S-WEST DETAIL4L1.02SCALE 1" = 10'City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8c) Title: Major Amendment to The West End Final PUD for Multiple-Family ResidentialPage 42
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending
Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to definitions; processing
comprehensive plan amendments and planning applications concurrently; fence height in the
front yard; front yard setbacks in commercial zoning districts; compact parking dimensions; and
allowing outdoor seating with food and beverage service in the Business Park zoning district,
and to set the second reading for October 21, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City make the proposed revisions to the zoning
ordinance?
SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify such items as
definitions; processing comprehensive plan amendments and planning applications concurrently;
fence height in the front yard; front yard setbacks in commercial zoning districts; compact
parking dimensions; and allowing outdoor seating with food and beverage service in the
Business Park zoning district.
Attached is a summary of the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance.
Planning Commission Review:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 18, 2013. No comments were
received from the public. The Commission recommended approval (4-0 vote) of the ordinance.
The minutes of the meeting are attached.
NEXT STEPS:
The second reading is tentatively scheduled for the October 21, 2013 City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Ordinance
Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
DISCUSSION
Amendments:
The following is a summary of the proposed miscellaneous amendments.
Move zoning definitions:
There are two areas in the zoning ordinance where various items are defined and described.
These are the “definitions” section and the “land use descriptions” section. This ordinance
moves some of the land use descriptions from the overall definitions section to the section of the
code that lists and defines all land uses. In addition it modifies the definition of “significant
tree.”
Allow Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be processed concurrently:
The ordinance currently separates Comprehensive Plan amendments from consideration of
conditional use permits and planned unit developments. In practice, a Comprehensive Plan
amendment should be considered along with the other development applications when the
purpose of the amendment is for new development. The separation of these items has caused
consternation and confusion, and is an unusual practice among cities. Combining applications is
helpful to citizens, Planning Commission, City Council, developers and staff.
Fence height in front yard:
Many homeowners have requested that fences be allowed up to 4-feet in front yards, as that has
become the standard panel size for fences. While 3 ½ foot fence panels can be found, most
styles of fences will have to be custom built to meet the 3.5 foot height limit. Increasing the
height to four feet meets the industry standard, and removes the financial impact of having to
build a custom 3.5 foot fence.
Setbacks in Commercial districts:
This proposed change clarifies and simplifies the setback requirements for commercial
properties. The current setback is 5 feet if the neighboring properties are also 5 feet. If two or
more neighboring properties have a front yard that is greater than 5 feet, then the required
setback becomes an average of existing setbacks. The average setback presents a moving target,
and it would be a more consistent practice to treat all commercial district buildings uniformly.
Outdoor seating in Business Park:
It is proposed to allow outdoor seating and service for restaurants and breweries located in the
Business Park zoning district and to alter the existing language in the commercial and office
districts so they all read consistently.
Compact parking dimensions:
It is proposed to add smaller dimensions to allow for compact parking stalls. Compact spaces
are currently allowed, but it does not specify the minimum dimensions.
Sign regulations:
This amendment is to include sign regulations in the Business Park zoning district; these were
inadvertently left off in the adoption of the zoning district.
NEXT STEPS:
Conduct the second reading on October 21, 2013.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
ORDINANCE NO.____-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 35, 74, 115, 142, 193, 194, 223, 361, AND 362
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No.13-35-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 35, 74, 115, 142, 193, 194, 223, 361,
and 362, is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language.
Section breaks are represented by ***.
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
***
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
***
Brewery means a facility that manufactures alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor. This
definition does not include breweries operated in conjunction with a restaurant as an accessory
use.
Taproom means a facility where on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption
on the premises of, or adjacent to, the brewery location owned by the brewer at which the malt
liquor is produced.
Significant Tree - Any tree, with the exception of Salix (Willow), Boxelder, Siberian Elm and
Black Locust, is considered to be significant under the landscaping section of the zoning
ordinance if it is at least five caliper inches for deciduous trees and six caliper inches for
conifers. Aspen, Cottonwood or Silver Maple are considered significant if they are at least 12
inches in diameter at breast height-DBH. means any mature tree as defined in the City of St.
Louis Park’s Landscape Tree List.
***
ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT*
***
Sec. 36-35. Amendments.
***
(d) Procedure for comprehensive plan and amendments.
***
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
7. If the requested application for a comprehensive plan amendment involves a land use or
density change on a particular parcel of land, no and the request also includes an application for a
conditional use permit, planned unit development, or variance related to that parcel shall all
applications may be accepted for processing until action on the comprehensive plan amendment
has been completed and handled concurrently.
***
ARTICLE III. GENERAL PROVISIONS
***
Sec. 36-74. Fences.
***
(d) Height. The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall
section. In the case where a fence has variable heights or where the ground slopes, the height of
the fence shall be the average height, but in no case shall the height of any one point exceed six
inches above the maximum allowed by this section. Fence posts may exceed eight inches above
the maximum allowed by this section.
(1) A fence or all shall not exceed six feet in height if it is located in any side or rear yard.
(2) A fence, wall or hedge shall not exceed 3 1/2 four feet in height if located in a front yard.
***
ARTICLE IV. ZONING DISTRICTS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 36-115. Land use by zoning district.
TABLE 36-115B
ZONING DISTRICTS
TABLE OF BULK REGULATIONS
Zoning Districts R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-C C-1 C-2 O I-P I-G M-X
Minimum lot width
1-2 story or 25 feet 75 60 60 60 80 -- -- 100 75 50 --
3-story or 35 feet 75 60 60 60 80 -- -- 100 100 75 --
4-story or 48 feet N/A N/A N/A 60 80 N/A -- 100 100 75 --
5-6 story or 75 feet N/A N/A N/A 60 80 N/A -- 100 150 100 --
Minimum lot area
1-2 story or 25 feet 9,000 7,200 7,200 8,000 15,000 -- -- 15,000 15,000 5,000 --
3-story or 35 feet 9,000 7,200 7,200 8,000 15,000 -- -- 15,000 18,000 7,500 --
4-story or 48 feet N/A N/A N/A 8,000 15,000 N/A -- 15,000 18,000 7,500 --
5-6 story or 75 feet N/A N/A N/A 8,000 15,000 N/A -- 15,000 22,500 10,000 --
Maximum density 4.8 6 10.9 30* 50* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50*
Maximum height 30 30 35 40* 75* 35 75 240 75 75 *
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Floor area ratio
(FAR)
0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5*
Ground floor area
ratio (GFAR)
0.3 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.25 -- -- -- -- -- --
Minimum yard widths
Front 30* 25* 25* 30* 30* 5* 5* 20* 50* 20 --
Side 1
1-2 story or 25 feet 6 5 6 15 15 0* 0* 15 20 12 --
3-story or 35 feet 6 5 6 15 15 0* 0* 15 25 12 --
4-story or 48 feet N/A N/A N/A 15+ 15+ N/A 15* 15+ 30 12 --
5-6 story or 75 feet N/A N/A N/A 15+ 15+ N/A 15* 15+ 35 12 --
Side 2
1-2 story or 25 feet 9* 7* 9* 1/2 1/2 0* 0* 1/2 20 0 --
3-story or 35 feet 9* 7* 9* 1/2 1/2 0* 0* 1/2 25 0 --
4-story or 48 feet N/A N/A N/A 1/2 1/2 N/A 15 1/2 30 0 --
5-6 story or 75 feet N/A N/A N/A 1/2 1/2 N/A 15 1/2 35 12 --
Side abutting street 15 15* 15* 15 15 15 15 15 25 15 --
Rear
1-2 story or 25 feet 25 25 25 25* 25* 10* 0* 15 20 10 --
3-story or 35 feet 25 25 25 25* 25* 10* 0* 15 20 10 --
4-story or 48 feet N/A N/A N/A 25* 25* N/A 1/2 1/2 40 20 --
5-6 story or 75 feet N/A N/A N/A 25* 25* N/A 1/2 1/2 40 20 --
1/2 = one-half building height.
+ = plus one-half building height.
*Certain conditions cause these figures to vary
***
DIVISION 2. LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
***
Sec 36-142. Descriptions.
***
(d) Commercial uses.
***
(7) Brewery means a facility that manufactures alcoholic and nonalcoholic malt liquor.
This definition does not include breweries operated in conjunction with a restaurant as an
accessory use.
(78) Business/trade school/college means a training establishment or institution serving
adults and sometimes high school age persons which provides training and/or education toward a
skill, license or degree.
(Ord. No. 2358-08, 8-14-08)
(89) Convention and exhibition center means a facility providing large and small meeting
rooms for the assembly of persons and the display of products and information. It may include
banquet kitchens and facilities. Characteristics include heavy parking and loading area
requirements and large scale buildings.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
(910) Currency exchange means any business or person except a bank, trust company,
savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or industrial loan and thrift company that
is engaged in the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders, or traveler’s checks for a fee.
(Ord. No. 2349-08, 02-22-08)
(101) Dry cleaning, laundering with route pickup and delivery, means a facility where
clothing, diapers or other fabrics are cleaned by dry cleaning or laundering processes. Materials
to be cleaned may be brought to the site either by pickup and delivery trucks operated as part of
the business or by customers who drop off and pick up their own materials to be cleaned. The
use may include the storage of delivery vehicles on the site.
(12) Firearms sales means a facility where the primary use is the sale, lease, or purchase of
firearms or ammunition.
(113) Food service means the on-site sale of food and beverages which are prepared and
served in individual portions in a ready to consume state for consumption either on-site or off-
site, including seating for not more than ten persons. Characteristics may include truck and
vehicle traffic, cooking odors and refuse. The preferred location is on major thoroughfares with
no access to local residential streets. This use is often found in conjunction with motor fuel
stations and grocery stores.
(124) Home occupation means an occupation, profession, or activity which provides gainful
employment to a resident of a dwelling unit which is clearly an incidental and subordinate use to
the residential use and which does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential
character of the neighborhood. Auto body/painting, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle service
and repair, retail sales, massage, medical/dental office, animal handling, beauty shop and
barbershop, warehouse/storage and manufacturing/processing do not qualify as home
occupations.
(135) Hotel means a lodging facility operated under the auspices of a national or
international hostel organization which has dormitory rooms available for rent by members. The
facility has common cooking and eating facilities and may have common restroom facilities. The
duration of stay is typically short and the facility has a resident manager.
(146) Hotel/motel means facilities which provide overnight lodging in individual rooms or
suites of rooms, each having a private bathroom, which are rented by day or week. These
facilities may include in-room or in-suite kitchens and recreational facilities for use by lodgers.
Restaurants, banquet rooms, arcades, fitness centers and other facilities available to nonlodgers
are not considered accessory uses.
(157) In-vehicle sales or service means sales or service to persons in vehicles. It may include
drive-in, drive-up and drive-through facilities, but does not include motor fuel stations.
Characteristics include high traffic volumes during the typical peak hour traffic period.
(18) Liquor store means a facility principally for the retail sale of pre-packaged alcoholic
beverages for off-premise consumption.
(169) Medical and dental laboratories mean facilities in which individually produced and
made to order medical and dental prosthetics are crafted for the specific needs of specific
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
individuals. Characteristics may include hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; daily
deliveries to and from the facilities by car, van or light truck; minimal heavy truck traffic; no use
of outside storage and occasional visitation of facilities by customers needing specialized
attention as to the make-up and fit of their specific prosthesis.
(1720) Motor fuel station means a facility which supplies and dispenses at retail motor fuels
directly into a motor vehicle; it also includes the sale of lubricants, batteries, tires and motor
vehicle accessories. Motor fuels may be self-serve or dispensed by an attendant. Light
maintenance activities to vehicles including engine tune-ups, lubrication, repairs, and carburetor
cleaning may also be conducted. Characteristics include outdoor activity, high traffic generation
and extended hours of operation. This use excludes heavy automobile repair including, but not
limited to, engine overhauls, automobile painting, and bodywork.
(1821) Motor vehicle sales means display, sale, and rental of automobiles, trucks and
recreational vehicles from an indoor showroom facility and may include an outdoor sales lot;
motor vehicle service and repair and autobody/painting often occur in conjunction with this use.
Characteristics may include outdoor activity, banners and lights for promotion and advertising,
outdoor sound systems, truck deliveries, night and weekend operating hours, and test driving on
nearby streets.
(Ord. No. 2248-03, 8-18-03)
(1922) Motor vehicles service and repair means repair, lubrication, washing, detailing,
equipment installation, engine overhauls, and other similar uses involving automobiles, trucks
and recreational vehicles. Characteristics may include the storage of vehicles, truck traffic, night
and weekend operating hours; motor fuel stations and autobody/painting are excluded.
(203) Office means a facility in which the handling of information or the performing of
administrative services is conducted. It includes services provided to persons both on-site and
off-site on a walk in or appointment basis such as counseling or indirect or nonpersonal service
such as real estate, travel agencies, financial agencies, insurance offices and professional offices.
This description excludes hospitals or other medical facilities; except it may include up to a
maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area in medical or dental offices. Characteristics
include high peak period traffic generation and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. hours of operation.
(214) Outdoor sales means the display and sale or rental of merchandise or equipment
outside of an enclosed building. It may include boat sales, canoe sales, nursery sales; but it
excludes the sale of motor vehicles.
(225) Pawnshop means a facility where money is loaned based on the value of goods
deposited at the facility by the borrower of the money, which goods are held by the lender of the
money occupying the facility as collateral for the loan. Items held by the lender which are not
redeemed by a borrower may be put up for sale at the facility to the general public. The term
pawnshop includes a facility where all or any part of the pawnshop activities are conducted.
(Ord. No. 2349-08, 2-22-08)
(236) Payday loan agency means any business that has as its primary activity the providing
of short-term loans for the borrower’s own personal, family, or household purpose which are
usually for a period of forty-five (45) days or less. Payday loan agencies do not include banks.
(Ord. No. 2349-08, 2-22-08)
(247) Places of Assembly are facilities designed to accommodate larger groups of people
having shared goals, desires or interests that are not customarily business related. Social,
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
educational, recreational, religious, and dining activities may be included. Characteristics may
include large group meetings or activities with peak parking demands and noise. If the floor area
devoted to food or beverage sales exceeds 50% of the total gross floor area, the facility will be
classified as a restaurant.
(Ord. No. 2311-06, 1-18-06)
(258) Post office customer service means the retail/customer service portion of the post
office function that includes customer drop off of packages and mail; sale to the public of
stamps, money orders, insurance, envelopes and packaging materials, and other mail services;
and post office boxes. Characteristics include hours similar to offices and Saturday mornings,
high volumes of automobile traffic and some truck traffic. Mail sorting for mail route delivery
and distribution are not part of this land use.
(269) Printing process/supply means a facility in which retail-oriented graphic and
photographic reproductive services are conducted. This does not include industrial operations
where printing is of a commercial nature.
(2730) Private entertainment (indoor) means entertainment services provided entirely within
an enclosed building. It includes theaters, health or fitness centers, bowling alleys, arcades, roller
rinks, and pool halls. Characteristics may include late operating hours, outdoor lighting, noise,
and traffic.
(2831) Restaurant means an establishment whose principal business is the sale of food and
beverages which are prepared and served in individual portions in a ready-to-consume state for
consumption on site. This use is often found in conjunction with bars, hotels and food service. It
is preferably located on major thoroughfares with no access to residential streets. Characteristics
include late hours of operation, refuse, high car and truck traffic generation, and cooking odors.
A food service or deli is not considered to be a restaurant if seating is provided for ten or fewer
persons.
(2932) Retail means a facility where merchandise or equipment is displayed and rented or sold
and where delivery of merchandise or equipment to the ultimate consumer is made. This use
includes limited production, repair or processing as an accessory use. Hours of operation
generally begin after the a.m. peak traffic period and extend to time ranges from 5:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m.; although some convenience stores and grocery stores are open 24 hours per day.
Characteristics generally include high parking demand and high off-peak traffic generation;
generally prefers high visibility and access to major thoroughfares. This use includes but is not
limited to camera shops, clothing stores, department stores, grocery stores, discount stores,
jewelry stores, delicatessens, retail bakeries, toy stores; but excludes restaurants, bars, pawn
shops, motor vehicle sales, motor fuel stations, and large item retail.
(29.133) Retail, large item means a facility where large item merchandise or equipment is
displayed and rented or sold and where delivery of merchandise or equipment to the ultimate
customer is made. Characteristics generally include hours of operation between 9:00 a.m. and
9:00 p.m. weekdays and weekends. The parking demand per square foot of building area is
normally less than the demand for general retail. This use includes but is not limited to, furniture
stores, carpet stores, large appliance stores; but excludes motor vehicle sales, pawnshops, and
retail.
(304) Service means on-site service provided directly to an individual. This use includes
barbershops, beauty shops, therapeutic massage, nail salon, laundromats, shoe repair shops, and
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
dry cleaners where articles to be cleaned are picked up and delivered by the patron. This use
excludes pawnshops. (Ord. No. 2358-08, 8-14-08)
(315) Sexually-oriented business means any limited impact sexually-oriented business or
any high impact sexually-oriented business.
***
(326) Shopping center means a group of commercial uses planned, owned and managed as
a unit that has common parking facilities. Shopping centers may include more than one building
and more than one contiguous property and owner if approved under a single conditional use
permit or planned unit development. (Ord. No. 2248-03, 8-18-03)
(337) Studio means a facility where the practice or study of the visual and audio arts occurs.
This use may include painting, sculpting, photography, recording, radio and television studios.
This use also includes dance studios and studios for the martial arts. This use does not include
large industrial photography or printing processes.
(38) Taproom means a facility where on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for
consumption on the premises of, or adjacent to, the brewery location owned by the brewer at
which the malt liquor is produced.
***
DIVISION 5. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS*
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(e) Accessory uses.
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if with the following conditions:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if it is adjacent to a parcel
that is occupied by a residential dwelling. This provision will not apply if the first floor of
the building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if a
residential dwelling is located above the restaurant principal use.
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the restaurant principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating
area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less.
(f) Dimensional standards/densities.
(4) The front yard shall be a minimum of five feet. unless a greater depth is required to meet
screening requirements. If the average depth of at least two existing front yards, for buildings
within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question, are less or greater than 20 feet,
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 10
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
in that case the required front yards shall be the average depth of such existing front yards, but
the depth of a front yard shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet.
***
Sec. 36-194. C-2 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(23) High impact sexually-oriented business.
***
b. No person shall operate a high impact sexually-oriented business on property, any part of
which is within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius of 1,000 feet from
another high impact sexually-oriented business, pawnshop, currency exchange, payday
loan agency, firearms sales, or liquor store.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(16) Pawnshops. The conditions are as follows:
a. The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing another
pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, gun shop firearms sales, liquor store or
sexually-oriented business. In the case of a shopping center of multi-use building, the distance
shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the pawnshop.
***
(19) Liquor stores. The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site
containing another liquor store, pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms
sales or sexually-oriented business. In the case of a shopping center of multi-use building, the
distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the liquor
store.
***
(f) Accessory uses.
***
(7) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use shall not be located in the interior side or back yard if it is adjacent to a parcel
that is occupied by a residential dwelling. This provision will not apply if the first floor of
the building located on the adjacent parcel is not occupied by a residential dwelling or if a
residential dwelling is located above the restaurant principal use.
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the restaurant principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating
area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 11
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
***
(g) Dimensional standards/densities.
***
(4) The front yard shall be a minimum of five feet. unless a greater depth is required to meet
screening requirements. If the average depth of at least two existing front yards, for buildings
within 150 feet along the same block front of the lot in question, are less or greater than 20 feet,
in that case the required front yards shall be the average depth of such existing front yards, but
the depth of a front yard shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet.
***
DIVISION 6. OFFICE DISTRICT REGULATIONS*
***
Sec. 36-223. O office district.
***
(f) Accessory uses.
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use to a
restaurant if:
a. The use is separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six foot
fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story
above a restaurant the principal use.
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the restaurant principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating
area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
DIVISION 7. BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT REGULATIONS*
***
Sec. 36-233. BP business park district.
***
(f) Accessory uses.
***
(4) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use if
with the following conditions:
a. The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six foot
fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper story
above the principal use.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 12
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
b. No speakers or other electronic devices which emit sound are permitted if the use is
located within 500 feet of a residential use.
c. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential use.
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of outdoor
seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area,
whichever is less.
(45) Parking ramps, subject to the conditions for parking ramps found in Section 36-233
(d)(6).
(56) Parking lots.
(67) Post Office Customer Service.
(78) Showroom.
(89) Warehouse / Storage.
***
ARTICLE V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 36-361. Off-street parking areas, paved areas, and loading spaces.
***
(k) Design Requirements
***
PARKING LOT DIMENSIONS
Table 36-361 (b)
Stall Angle
(degrees)
Curb Length
(feet)
Vehicle Projection
(feet)
Aisle Width
(feet)
Total Width
(feet)
45 Standard
Compact
12.0
11.5
18.5
17.0
13.0*
50.0
60 Standard
Compact
10.0
9.5
20.0
18.0
15.0*
55.0
75 Standard
Compact
9.0
8.5
20.5
17.5
18.0*
59.0
90 Standard
Compact
8.5
8.0
18.0
16.0
25.0
61.0**
Parallel Standard
Compact
23.0
21.0
8.5
8.0
22.0
38.0
***
Sec. 36-362. Sign regulations.
***
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 13
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
(f) General provisions.
***
(2) Required yards. Sign shall maintain a 10 foot minimum yard to property line unless
exempted below:
a. In the C-1, and C-2, BP, and M-X districts the required yard for any sign less than 200
square feet in sign area shall be 5 feet.
***
TABLE 36-362A
SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT
***
I-P / BP
0 – 20,000 25 100 75 80 80
20,000 – 50,000 25 200 100 80 80
Over 50,000 – 100,000 25 250 150 80 80
Over 100,000 25 350 300 80 80
***
(g) Adjustments to table 36-362A.
***
(4) In the C-1, C-2, O, BP, I-G and I-P districts, the total area of all wall signs on a building
which meets the following outlined conditions shall not be included in calculating the aggregate
sign area on a lot:
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 13-35-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing September 18, 2013
First Reading October 7, 2013
Second Reading October 21, 2013
Date of Publication October 31, 2013
Date Ordinance takes effect November 15, 2013
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 14
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 18, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Dennis Morris, Richard Person,
Carl Robertson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Larry Shapiro, Charlie Dixon (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT:
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of August 21, 2013
Commissioner Person made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Morris seconded
the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. Public Hearings
C. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 13-35-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained that the
proposed amendments consist of a number of unrelated items including definitions; processing
comprehensive plan amendments and planning applications concurrently; fence height in the
front yard; front yard setbacks in commercial zoning districts; compact parking dimensions; and
allowing outdoor seating with food and beverage service in the Business Park zoning district.
Commissioner Person asked if each stall of compact parking requires a sign.
Mr. Morrison replied each compact parking stall would have a sign.
Commissioner Morris spoke about distance requirements of liquor stores, sexually-oriented
businesses, pawnshops, currency exchanges, etc., and asked if the city has dropped distance
requirements between certain uses and daycare and schools.
Mr. Morrison responded that sexually-oriented businesses and liquor store setback requirements
are currently addressed in the ordinance. He said the reason the proposed amendment adds
liquor stores, pawnshops, firearms sales, etc., is to correct reciprocal setbacks that weren’t
included in the pawnshop amendment a couple of years ago.
Commissioner Morris commented that maybe the city needs to start adjusting its thinking as to
what these businesses are and why they can’t be closer together. He asked what the moral logic
is in keeping these businesses separated. He added that more realistically the businesses are
legitimate businesses.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8d) Page 15
Title: First Reading – Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Mr. Morrison replied that a study was done on these uses a few years ago that led up to the
current ordinance. He said the study took into consideration the effect that the accumulation or
concentration of many of these types of uses has on a neighborhood. That is the intent of
separating them out.
Chair Robertson said he agreed with Commissioner Morris. He said the city is arbitrarily
labeling a few honest, legal, productive businesses as less than desirable. He said he is not
comfortable with that.
Commissioner Carper noted that a correction needs to be made to page 10, item (5)d. The word
restaurant should be deleted by strikethrough.
Commissioner Person said the concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendment seemed like a good
idea. He asked how much time that would save in the application process.
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said it could save at least two months. She
said most cities prefer to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment concurrently with other
development approvals.
Chair Robertson said he is very cautious about this because any Comprehensive Plan changes
should stand alone on its own merit. He added that concurrent application is a great idea for
ease of the development process.
Ms. McMonigal said the ability remains to review proposals at study sessions prior to the
application stage.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the miscellaneous Zoning
Ordinance amendments as recommended by staff. Commissioner Person seconded the motion,
and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 7, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 8e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Safety Software Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to enter into an Agreement with ZuercherTechnologies
LLC in the amount of $494,560 plus annual maintenance fees starting at $74,284 per year for
provision of software licensing and maintenance, hardware provision and maintenance, and
several related services for use of ZuercherTech’s ledsSuite product offerings to the City of St.
Louis Park’s Police and Fire Departments.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to enter into this agreement to engage the City of St. Louis Park’s use of
ZuercherTech’s ledsSuite system? Does Council wish to have more detailed information
provided on the public safety software situation at this time?
SUMMARY:
At the direction of the City Manager, the Police Department staff engaged services of PSC
Alliance consultants to assist the Police Department in developing a Request for Proposal (RFP)
that ensures its business process needs can be addressed by proposals for a fully integrated police
software system. Through that process, four vendors made proposals and two were vetted further
in order to test the marketplace and compare the value propositions offered by current vendor
products and products / packages with what could be obtained through working collaboratively
with other Police agencies. The end result of that process is the Police Department’s
recommendation that the City enter into an agreement with ZuercherTech LLC for provision of a
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) / Records / Mobiles / Jail / Automated Vehicle Locator
system. The ZuercherTech proposal also includes conversion of some existing data used by
Police and Fire and necessary interfaces to work with the State, FBI, and selected other support
systems. The agreement includes payments to ZuercherTech of 30% upon execution of the
agreement, 30% upon installation of hardware and software, 25% upon production use of the
hardware and software, and 15% after final system acceptance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funds for the possible acquisition of a new public safety software suite and the potential to
replace some other services Police and Fire currently share through the LOGIS public safety
collaborative have been included in the 2013 Capital Improvement Program (with the Police
Pension Fund as the specific source). Sufficient on-going operating and maintenance resources
are available in the form of funds currently paid to LOGIS from the Information Technology
budget, payments that would shift to paying ZuercherTech if the agreement is approved.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
ZuercherTech Contract
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park Police Department has utilized computerized Records and Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems since 1984. Later in the 1980’s computerized mobile devices
started being introduced into squads and have since become a standard feature. The CAD system
also serves the St. Louis Park Fire Department as the dispatch operation is part of the Police
Department. Since 1984, the Police Department has collaborated with several other metro area
agencies through the LOGIS consortium (www.logis.org). Such collaboration is designed to
share risks, costs, and information among the participating agencies. Police agency
representatives from the membership research and select computerized software applications that
LOGIS staff is then requested to implement.
The software applications are replaced periodically as technology changes and more features are
requested. For approximately the last 10 years, the LOGIS police agencies have utilized a
Records – CAD – Mobiles software suite from Motorola. In 2008 the Public Safety Steering
Committee for LOGIS, composed of representatives from several public safety agencies,
researched alternative software packages and through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process
recommended acquisition of a new Motorola product that was still in its development phase.
While there were other software packages available at that time, they either did not meet
requirements of the public safety agency collaborative or the price point was deemed
unaffordable. The public safety agency representatives felt the Motorola suite was the best
among a very limited choice in this marketplace.
Following contract execution in 2009, Motorola continued development and began its
implementation of the new software suite code-named Premiere One. Since then, Motorola has
yet to be successful in implementing its software to the satisfaction of the LOGIS public safety
agencies. LOGIS staff is in agreement. In July of 2012, it reached the point where the LOGIS
Board of Directors authorized staff to provide a notice of default and cure to Motorola relating to
the Premiere One project and take legal actions consistent with termination of the contract. The
goal was to make LOGIS and member public safety agencies – St. Louis Park is one of about 25
agencies – as whole as possible for costs incurred during this project. Results of the settlement
process with Motorola were successful and included member cities receiving a refund of most
project costs and payments incurred.
Since settlement with Motorola in late 2012, the remaining LOGIS public safety members re-
issued the RFP and have since selected TriTech as their new public safety software applications
provider. As expected, besides St. Louis Park, two other current agencies (New Hope and
Rosemount) have opted out of the collaborative process since Motorola’s failed implementation.
Another agency, Richfield, is closing its dispatch center, but currently remaining in the
collaborative to share police records data with other agencies. As of this writing, LOGIS is
hoping to reach an agreement with TriTech in October. If all goes well, it is expected that most
LOGIS public safety agencies would be migrated to TriTech between 2014 and 2015.
Since 2009, several things have evolved:
• First, Motorola failed in its project implementation. Its promises never materialized.
• It appears other software products may have emerged in the public safety software
product arena. St. Louis Park public safety staff has been researching some of these
products.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement
• It may be that some of these products are more competitively priced than the product
choices in 2008, possibly making it cheaper to be on our own than collaborating with
other agencies. A full accounting of costs and services would need to be forecasted, and
now has been.
• Based on reviewing other public safety agencies, it seems clear there are companies (such
as TriTech) that are more reliable than Motorola has been with delivering promised
public safety software.
• While it seems to be the case that a few more companies have offerings for Police records
and CAD systems, the number of choices in Fire records systems continues to be small.
Those choices were also very limited in 2008.
• One differentiating advantage to being a member of the LOGIS public safety agency
collaborative has been the ability to share and mine incident and suspect data across
member public safety agencies using a common database. While that was considered to
be a real advantage at one time, it may no longer be the case. The State has evolved its
own data repository, although that repository (CIBRS) has had limited use to date. That
said, it is true that some bordering communities including Hopkins, Edina, Plymouth, and
Minneapolis do not electronically share data with each other or St. Louis Park. St. Louis
Park currently shares a common data base and data with Golden Valley and Minnetonka,
but that stops for St. Louis Park with its decision to go to ZuercherTech.
• As the number of collaborating public safety agencies has grown and St. Louis Park’s
business needs have diverged from those of other agencies, St. Louis Park Police
Department staff feel it makes more sense to be on our own for public safety software
(like Hopkins, Edina, Plymouth, and Minneapolis, as examples), rather than collaborate
with a group of agencies (including Golden Valley and Minnetonka). That said, St. Louis
Park Police may eventually be interested in forming future partnerships with other
agencies with like-minded business processes (and therefore similar software application
needs) in public safety. That is beyond the scope of this agreement.
It is likely that remaining public safety agencies collaborating through LOGIS will continue to
work together to implement the replacement TriTech public safety software suite of products. To
be sure, there are many other LOGIS infrastructure and security services that hold value and St.
Louis Park Police have elected to continue using. These services will be paid for as used.
At the direction of the City Manager, the Police Department staff engaged services of PSC
Alliance consultants to assist the Police Department in developing an RFP that ensures its
business process needs can be addressed by proposals for a replacement system. Through that
process, four vendors made proposals and two were vetted further in order to test the
marketplace and compare the value propositions offered by current vendor products and products
/ packages that could be obtained through the larger consortium. The end result of that process is
the Police Department’s recommendation that the City enter into an agreement with
ZuercherTech LLC for provision of a CAD / Records / Mobiles / Jail / Automated Vehicle
Locator system. The ZuercherTech proposal also includes conversion of some existing Dispatch,
Records, and Evidence data used by Police and Fire, and necessary interfaces to work with the
State, FBI, and other support systems.
ZuercherTech (stand-alone) and TriTech (collaborative) products offer somewhat different tiers
of public safety software applications and feature sets. In addition, operating as a stand-alone
agency instead of a data-sharing multi-agency collaborative presents different system designs
with different costs. In the end, we need to estimate costs as best we can with the information we
have. The Police Department is recommending an on-going agreement with ZuercherTech. The
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e) Page 4
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement
agreement can be terminated with notice as needed. In the technology world, much can change
over time and quickly. That said, if all goes according to the current plan, it appears the
comparative overall projected 5-year Total Cost of Ownership approximates the following:
ZuercherTech: $912,723 (not including legal fees and in-house staff efforts)
TriTech: $1,335,472
It should be noted that while this entire project implementation is carried out and completed,
LOGIS will continue to provide services with the existing Records – CAD – Mobiles software
suite for St. Louis Park. Complete transition is expected to end sometime in 2014. While this
aging suite does not include all features agencies, including St. Louis Park, feel are needed to
meet current and emerging business needs, the system has proven to be relatively reliable over
the years. The CIO has worked with LOGIS to ensure existing capabilities to support Police and
Fire functions and serve our constituents continue until migration to ZuercherTech is complete in
2014.
ZUERCHERTECH SYSTEM FEATURES:
Below are several high-level system features of ZuercherTech, some in comparison to the
software option available through the public safety agency collaborative:
• The Police and Fire Departments feel ZuercherTech can meet virtually all system
requirements in the SLP PD (St. Louis Park Police Department) and FD (Fire
Department).
• ZuercherTech claims that it will customize or provide a forms creator (that can be used
by SLP PD and FD staff) as needed to meet all requirements of SLP PD and FD.
• While ZuercherTech’s product appears to include all core modules needed, there are
other support modules currently used that are not currently available from ZuercherTech.
For at least the short-term, that means it will be necessary to continue use of multiple
systems and related costs and data from these support modules will not be converted as
part of this agreement. These support modules include:
o CADMine: This crime analysis and internal and public web incident mapping
currently provided by CADMine is not currently scoped to be totally replaced by
the integrated ZuercherTech modules. Police report the crime analysis component
is currently available with ZuercherTech, and ZuercherTech hopes to add the
internal and public web incident mapping in the future. Police staff have
indicated they do not need this functionality immediately. Police intends to stop
use of CADMine following system migration.
o Request Partner: Used to track quality of life cases and internally manage
workflow in Police. This capability is not currently available as a standard module
through ZuercherTech. However, Police intends to use ZuercherTech’s custom
form builder to replace this functionality in the future. Until that time, Police
plans to continue using Request Partner.
o WebXtender (documents imaging system): This system is used by Police to
scan and store documents related to cases as well as related audio files. At this
time, Police plans to use the new ZuercherTech application to store and retrieve
future documents and audio files, use the separate WebXtender application to
retrieve files going back to 1992, and use microfilm to retrieve files prior to 1992.
Police hopes to work with ZuercherTech under a separate contract in the future to
price and convert any older WebXtender documents and audio files needed. Since
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e) Page 5
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement
WebXtender is also used by other City departments, and Police is the largest user
department, migration of Police use to ZuercherTech would likely reduce
WebXtender licensing fees and storage requirements.
• The original goal of the Police Department was to have an all-inclusive integrated
software package that did not require opening multiple programs, and it was thought
ZuercherTech had such a fully integrated package. Although ZuercherTech cannot
currently replace these support modules, SLP Police have indicated ZuercherTech might
meet these needs in the future, and they wish to move forward at this time with these
support modules remaining non-integrated and the workflow implications.
• SLP PD and Minnetonka PD currently use each other as backup dispatch centers when
needed. That arrangement has worked well in part due to sharing common public safety
software and phone systems. Going forward, the two PD’s wish to continue this
relationship. Both agencies will continue to share common phone systems in the short
term. However, Minnetonka has chosen to remain part of the public safety collaborative
and will be using the collaborative’ s TriTech software product. In order to approximate
the current backup environment in the future, each agency will likely need to add
redundant equipment and secure networking to access their respective ZuercherTech and
TriTech systems at the other’s site. This is not part of the scope of the current agreement
with ZuercherTech, and the feasibility of this option has not been investigated. However,
a small amount of project funds has been set aside to start this process.
• Importantly, SLP Police has indicated that the existing inter-agency data sharing / data
mining with some other metro area cities through a common database is not a critical
need going forward. SLP Fire has indicated that CAD data sharing will be accomplished
with FATPOT, which will be coordinated through Hennepin County. St. Louis Park will
interface to that system. Thus, at this time, it is understood that inter-agency Police data
sharing is a feature of the TriTech alternative, but not part of the RFP process to which
ZuercherTech responded. SLP Police understands this data sharing is not available by
going as a stand-alone Police agency using ZuercherTech. It should also be noted that
several other nearby Police agencies are stand-alone and do not share a common database
with others. These include Plymouth, Hopkins, Edina, and Minneapolis. CISA (Criminal
Information Sharing and Analysis) is another program that agencies in Hennepin County
use to share information that affects multiple County jurisdictions.
• If projections are correct and SLP PD and FD can have their needs met for even
approximately $423,000 less over 5 years with ZuercherTech instead of TriTech, that is
significant. It may well reflect a difference in capabilities / data sharing between the
ZuercherTech and TriTech applications, but if SLP PD and FD’s actual requirements can
be met by ZuercherTech at a lower cost, there is no justification to pay more.
• SLP PD indicates that it utilizes a business model for which ZuercherTech is a better fit
than TriTech. As a result, SLP PD business requirements may well be different than the
collaborative’ s public safety agencies as a whole that use other police business models.
• The ZuercherTech option provides SLP PD and FD the autonomy and self-determination
that comes with a direct contract with a vendor (though there are some limits there too as
ZuercherTech serves several customers). Total autonomy is lost through collaborating
and sharing decision making with other public safety agencies.
• ZuercherTech can be installed faster (by sometime in 2014 is understood to be the case)
than TriTech.
• Although St. Louis Park is leaving the collaborative for public safety applications, the
Police and Fire Departments will continue to use the collaborative for high-speed fiber
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e) Page 6
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement
networking, 800 MHz radio service, landline IP telephone service, jail phones, Police
Admin lines, and 9-1-1 interfaces in Dispatch.
• By any measure, public safety (especially including local dispatch) already requires the
greatest amount of technology support in the city environment. Thus, as the City
Manager has stated since the beginning of the RFP process, any new application provider
would be solely responsible to install and provide on-going support for public safety
software and hardware for Police and Fire in cooperation with Police and Fire staff. City
IT would continue its role of supporting local hardware, software, and networking needs
so as not to expand its role with no additional staff. City IT will also participate in limited
project startup tasks. That said, due to the scope of this project, the CIO strongly supports
the Police and Fire consultant assisting through project implementation, testing, and
acceptance (these tasks are included in the consultant’s contract and project cost). That
same consultant has worked with Police and Fire to bring them to this point of their
recommendation.
• Changing from the current public safety applications through the collaborative to any
new suite will mean a change in business processes and practices. This is generally the
most significant and challenging part of these projects. Many processes will not work as
they have. Until actually implemented, it can only be hoped that processes and actual
outcomes will improve. It will include and touch Police and Fire administrative staff,
officers, and dispatchers. It will include new ways of working with other related agencies
at the State level. It adds a responsibility, primarily to Police staff, to work directly with a
new vendor to maintain a mission critical system. Police and Fire staff have worked with
their consultant to find the technology that best fits unique business needs. They indicated
they welcome this change and are excited about the opportunity to be an autonomous
agency regarding public safety software.
• Finally, working in collaboration with other agencies, even just 20 - 30 as is currently the
case, has both its advantages (e.g., data sharing) and challenges (e.g., meeting every
agency’s specific needs and wants). While there are always trade-offs, moving away from
collaboration would enable St. Louis Park Police and Fire to be like most of the other
800+ cities in Minnesota in terms of autonomy and self-determination.
NEXT STEPS:
Following Council approval of this agreement, PSC Alliance is scheduled to assist Police and
Fire in their implementation and conversion to the ZuercherTech system. Police and Fire staff
will be the primary implementers and installers of their system along with ZuercherTech and
PSC Alliance. Police staff will provide on-going local maintenance in partnership with
ZuercherTech. City IT will assist on an as-needed basis to troubleshoot local computer and
network issues as it currently does with the collaborative. And City IT will in fact reprioritize
other projects to take on and absorb new start-up responsibilities for this project: local aspects of
network security to meet Minnesota BCA requirements, preparation of the main and standby
server sites, creating initial GIS data layers to then be maintained by Police staff, and organizing
setup of contractor training equipment. These services are currently provided by the
collaborative. One central goal to keep project costs as low as possible is to limit the need for on-
going City IT support. This is especially important as Police and Fire have not requested an
increase in IT staff with this, the largest City IT system, moving in-house from the collaborative.
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 1
AGREEMENT made this ___ day of October, 2013 by and between the City of St. Louis Park
(the “Customer”), having its principle place of business at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota and Zuercher Technologies LLC (“Zuercher”), having its principal place
of business at 5121 South Solberg Avenue, Suite 150, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SERVICE AGREEMENT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Definitions
Documentation. All written, electronic, or recorded end user and system administrator
documentation and functional descriptions therein that describe the uses, features, and functional
capabilities of the System, and that are published or provided to the Customer by Zuercher.
Hardware. All hardware, equipment, and other tangible non-Software items supplied to the
Customer by Zuercher under this Agreement.
Production. The use of the System as a live, non-test-bed system. This can be exhibited by
events such as the completion of the first real-world booking, the taking of the first real-world
call for service, the entry of the first real-world case report, or a similar event dealing with real-
world use.
Software. Any computer programs in object code form and any updates, enhancements,
modifications, revisions, additions, replacements or conversions thereof owned by Zuercher and
set forth or identified in Addendum A or subsequently licensed to the Customer. Software
specifically excludes any Third Party Software. However, any software that Zuercher provides,
including third party for the customer to use the Zuercher System is to be supported by Zuercher.
Server Hardware. All hardware, equipment, and other tangible non-Software items supplied to
the Customer by Zuercher under this Agreement listed as “Server Hardware” in Addendum A.
Services. All project management, training, data conversion, and other services to be provided
by Zuercher under this Agreement.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 7
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 2
System. The collective whole of all Software, Hardware, and Services to be purchased,
developed, licensed, supplied, installed, configured, or implemented by Zuercher under this
Agreement.
System Implementation. The point in time at which Customer first begins using the System in
Production.
Third Party Software. Any software to be supplied by Zuercher under this agreement that is
purchased or licensed from any source external to Zuercher for use with or integration into the
System.
2. License
2.1 Grant of the License
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, Zuercher hereby grants to the Customer, and
the Customer accepts, a limited, non-transferable and non-exclusive license to use the Software
only for the Customer’s own business purposes.
2.2 Copies and Modifications
Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Zuercher, no identifying marks, copyright or
proprietary right notices may be deleted from any copies of the Software made by the Customer.
The Customer shall not decompile, or create by reverse engineering or otherwise, the source
codes from the object code supplied hereunder, or adapt the Software in any way or use it to
create a derivative work. Zuercher shall not be responsible in any way for Software performance
if the Software has been modified, except as modified by Zuercher. Customer shall not modify or
make any copies of the Software so as to not risk any Customer liability, but rely on the Escrow
agreement in the event Customer ever needs access to the Software. Said provision
notwithstanding, Customer reserves the right to make copies of Customer-owned data at any
time during the term of this agreement.
2.3 Restrictions on Usage
The Customer shall not allow any party, other than Zuercher, to perform “write” operations
directly to or on the server or database (such as by using an ODBC driver). This provision shall
in no way preclude Customer usual and customary business use of the System.
The Customer shall not access through direct logon any Server Hardware or cause any software
except the Software provided under this Agreement to be installed on or executed on the Server
Hardware. Customer promises to not access or alter Software or Server Hardware except to use
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 8
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 3
Zuercher System for usual and customary business purposes on a daily basis as recommended by
Zuercher.
3. Delivery, Fees Payment
3.1 Delivery of Software to Customer
The Software shall be delivered in executable object code form only. Zuercher shall initially
deliver and install copies of the Software as set forth in Addendum A on Hardware. Except as
stated in Addendum D, Zuercher shall not be responsible for providing any updates,
enhancements, modifications, revisions, additions, replacements, conversions or maintenance to
the Software.
3.2 Delivery of Hardware to Customer
Zuercher shall ship Hardware to the Customer’s location at a mutually agreeable time in the
project timeline. Items shipped via commercial carrier are FOB destination at the fixed price
stated herein. It shall be the Customer’s responsibility to install all Hardware except the Server
Hardware and to perform proper facility preparation (such as appropriate uninterrupted power,
air conditioning, space, electrical drops, security, network equipment, network drops, etc) not
specified in this Agreement as being provided by Zuercher, but necessary to accommodate
equipment before, during, and/or after installation. It shall be Zuercher’s responsibility to install
the Server Hardware with the assistance of Customer’s IT staff.
3.3 Delivery of Services to Customer
Zuercher will provide Services as set forth in Addendum A.
3.4 Fees
Upon execution of the Agreement, the Customer shall pay Zuercher the fees on the due dates set
forth in Addendum C.
3.5 Payment
The Customer shall pay invoices received from Zuercher by the date due according to the terms
of this Agreement.
3.6 System Acceptance
The Customer acknowledges that the System shall be deemed accepted on the date of
notification of System completion by Zuercher, unless the Customer notifies Zuercher in writing
within sixty (60) days after delivery of such notification of any material non-conformity in the
Software as compared with the Documentation and this Agreement or of any failure to deliver
Hardware or Services in accordance with this Agreement. In the event that the Customer does so
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 9
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 4
notify Zuercher, Zuercher shall promptly use its reasonable efforts to correct any non-conformity
and will again send notification in writing that the installation is complete. System Acceptance
will be dated at the new notification.
3.7 System Acceptance Following a Notification of Non-Conformity
The Customer acknowledges that the System shall be deemed accepted on the date of new
notification of System Acceptance by Zuercher, unless the Customer notifies Zuercher in writing
within sixty (60) days after delivery thereof of any continued non-conformity. In the event that
the Customer does so notify Zuercher, Zuercher shall promptly use reasonable efforts to correct
any non-conformity and will again send notification in writing that the installation is complete.
3.8 Maintenance Agreement
So long as Customer does not exercise its right to termination pursuant to Section 6.3 herein,
Zuercher shall provide maintenance as set forth in Addendum D for the fees set forth in
Addendum C for a period of ten years.
4. Other Rights and Obligations
4.1 Proprietary Rights
Zuercher represents that it is the owner of or otherwise has the rights to the Software and that it
has the right to grant the License. Zuercher retains title to the Software and any other
deliverables hereunder, including, without limitation, all copies and audiovisual aspects thereof
and all rights to patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and other intellectual property
rights inherent therein and appurtenant thereto. The Customer shall not, by virtue of this
Agreement or otherwise, acquire any proprietary rights whatsoever in the Software or in any
other deliverables hereunder, which shall be confidential information of Zuercher and the sole
and exclusive property of Zuercher. Zuercher hereby expressly reserves any right not expressly
granted to the Customer by this Agreement. No identifying marks, copyright or proprietary right
notices may be deleted from any copy of the Software provided to or made by the Customer.
4.2 Trademarks and Trade Names
Any and all trademarks and trade names, which Zuercher uses in connection with the License
granted hereunder, are and shall remain the exclusive property of Zuercher. Nothing contained
in this Agreement shall be deemed to give the Customer any right, title or interest in any
trademark or trade name of Zuercher.
4.3 Confidentiality
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Customer shall not sell, transfer, publish,
disclose or otherwise make available any portion of the Software to others. The Customer shall
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 10
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 5
use its reasonable best efforts to cooperate with and assist Zuercher in identifying and preventing
any unauthorized use, copying or disclosure of the Software or any portion thereof or any of the
algorithms or logic contained therein.
4.4 Non-Confidential Information
Confidentiality obligations of the parties shall not extend to information that:
(a) is, as of the time of its disclosure, or thereafter becomes part of the public domain
through a source other than the receiving party;
(b) was known to the receiving party at the time of its disclosure and such knowledge can be
proven by documentation;
(c) is independently developed by the receiving party;
(d) is subsequently learned from a third party not under a confidentiality obligation to the
providing party; or
(e) is required to be disclosed pursuant to applicable statute or regulation, court order,
subpoena, or government authority.
4.5 Disclaimer of Warranty
The warranties set forth in Zuercher’s Response to RFP, dated January 31, 2013 and Addendum
D are the only warranties made by Zuercher. Zuercher expressly disclaims, and the Customer
hereby expressly waives, all other warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation,
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
4.6 Legal Relationship
It is expressly understood by the Customer and Zuercher that Zuercher shall not be construed to
be, and is not, an employee of the Customer. Zuercher shall provide services to the Customer as
an independent contractor with control over the time, means and methods for accomplishing the
services outlined in this Agreement. Zuercher further acknowledges that he/she is not entitled to
such benefits as holiday time, vacation time, sick leave, retirement benefits, health benefits, or
other benefits usually associated with employment.
4.7 Insurance Provision
Zuercher, at all times during the term of this Agreement, shall obtain and maintain in force
insurance coverage of the types and with the limits as follows:
Commercial General Liability Insurance
Zuercher shall maintain occurrence based commercial general liability insurance or
equivalent form with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 for each occurrence. If such
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 11
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 6
insurance contains a general aggregate limit it shall apply separately to this Agreement or
be no less than two times the occurrence limit.
Professional Liability Insurance or Miscellaneous Professional Liability Insurance
Zuercher agrees to procure and maintain professional liability insurance or miscellaneous
professional liability insurance with a limit not less than $2,000,000.00 per occurrence
and $4,000,000.00 aggregate.
Business Automobile Liability Insurance
Zuercher shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a
limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 for each accident. Such insurance shall include
coverage for owned, hired and non-owned vehicles.
At the Customer’s request, Zuercher shall provide properly executed Certificates of Insurance
which shall clearly evidence all insurance required in this Agreement and which provide that
such insurance may not be canceled, except on thirty (30) days prior written notice to the
Customer.
5. Limitation of Liability
The aggregate liability of Zuercher for any reason and upon any cause of action of claim,
including, without limitation, Zuercher’s obligation to indemnify and hold harmless under this
agreement, shall be limited to the amount of $2,000,000.00, including, without limitation, breach
of contract, breach of warranty, indemnity, negligence, strict liability, misrepresentations, and
other torts.
6. Termination
6.1 Termination for Cause
Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause based upon the failure of the other party to
comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement by giving written notice specifying the
non-compliance. If within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, the non-compliant party
shall not have corrected such failure or, in the case of failure which cannot be corrected in thirty
(30) days, begun in good faith to correct said failure and thereafter proceeded diligently to
complete such correction, then the other party may, at its option, place the non-compliant party
in default and the Agreement shall terminate on the date specified in such notice.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 12
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 7
6.2 Post-Termination Obligations
All provisions hereof relating to Zuercher’s proprietary rights, confidentiality, non-disclosure
and non-solicitation shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Any fees due
as per Addendum C for work completed prior to termination shall still be paid by the Customer.
6.3 Termination of Maintenance Agreement
Customer may terminate the Maintenance Agreement set forth in Addendum D by providing
notice ninety (90) days prior to the date that the next annual maintenance payment is due.
7. Miscellaneous
7.1 Contract Documents
The following Exhibits are incorporated into this Agreement:
1. Addendum A
2. Addendum B
3. Addendum C
4. Addendum D
5. Addendum E
6. Zuercher’s Response to the RFP dated January 31, 2013
7. Customer’s RFP and Instructions to Vendors
In the event of any inconsistency between the various documents that comprise this Agreement,
the order of precedence, unless otherwise specifically stated, shall be as follows: (i) the
Agreement, followed by (ii) the exhibits to the Agreement in the order in which they appear
above.
This Agreement may not be modified except by a writing subscribed to by authorized
representatives of both parties.
7.2 Force Majeure
Neither party shall be liable to the other for any failure of performance under this Agreement due
to causes beyond its control, consisting of acts of God, fire, flood or other catastrophes; any law,
order, regulation, direction, action or request of the United States Government, or of any other
government, including state and local governments having or claiming jurisdiction over such
party, or of any civil or military authority; national emergencies; insurrections; riots; wars; or
strikes, lock-outs, work stoppages or other labor difficulties (collectively, “Force Majeure
Events”).
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 13
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 8
7.3 Governing Law
This Agreement and performance hereunder shall be governed by the law of the State of
Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of law of such state or international
treaties.
7.4 Assignment
Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written
consent of the other party. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
7.5 Survival
All provisions of this Agreement relating to proprietary rights, confidentiality, non-disclosure or
to payment of fees by the Customer shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
7.6 No Waiver
The waiver or failure of either party to exercise any right in any respect provided for herein shall
not be deemed a waiver of any further right hereunder.
7.7 Enforceability
If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this Agreement, or
portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent
permissible so as to affect the intent of the Parties, and the remainder of this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.
7.8 Remedies
Unless otherwise specified herein, the rights and remedies of both Parties set forth in this
Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies available to it at
law or in equity.
7.9 Headings
The headings of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not
constitute a part hereof or affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
7.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries
The Parties agree that this Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties hereto and is not intended
to confer any rights or benefits on any third party, and that there are no third party beneficiaries
as to this Agreement or any part of specific provision of this Agreement.
7.11 Taxes
The Customer shall, in addition to the payments required hereunder, pay all applicable sales, use,
transfer or other taxes and all duties, whether international, national, state or local, however
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 14
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 9
designated, which are levied or imposed by reason of the transactions contemplated hereby,
excluding, however, income taxes on net profits which may be levied against Zuercher. The
Customer shall reimburse Zuercher for the amount of any such taxes or duties paid or accrued
directly by Zuercher as a result of this transaction. If the Customer is a tax-exempt organization,
the Customer will provide Zuercher with documentation required by the taxing authority to
support such exemption.
7.12 Non-Discrimination
During the performance of this contract, Zuercher shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age. Zuercher
shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth
the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will
receive consideration for employment. Zuercher shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of
this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its
subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program
work.
7.13 Change Orders
Change orders and out-of-scope work will be defined by written agreement.
7.14 Audit Disclosure
Zuercher shall allow the Customer or its duly authorized agents reasonable access to such of
Zuercher’s books and records as are pertinent to all services provided under this Agreement.
Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by, Zuercher under this
Agreement which the client requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any
individual or organization without the prior written approval of both Customer and Zuercher.
All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models,
photographs, and reports prepared by Zuercher shall become the property of the Customer upon
termination of this Agreement, but Zuercher may retain copies of such documents as records of
the services provided.
7.15 Subcontractor
Zuercher shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the
express written consent of the Customer. Zuercher shall pay any subcontractor involved in the
performance of this Agreement within ten (10) days of Zuercher’s receipt of payment by the
Customer for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If Zuercher fails within that
time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount for which Zuercher has received payment
by the Customer, Zuercher shall pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 15
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 10
rate of 1-1/2 percent per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty
payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of less than $100,
Zuercher shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who
prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from Zuercher shall be awarded its costs and
disbursements, including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the action.
7.16 Compliance with Laws and Regulations
In providing services hereunder, Zuercher shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and
regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute
a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the Customer to terminate this Agreement as per
Section 6.1.
7.17 Indemnification
Subject to the $2,000,000.00 aggregate limit set forth in Section 5 herein, Zuercher agrees to
defend, indemnify and hold the Customer, its officers, and employees harmless from any
liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from an error, omission or negligent act of Zuercher, its agents,
employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and
against all losses by reason of the failure of said Zuercher fully to perform, in any respect, all
obligations under this Agreement.
7.18 Records Access
Zuercher shall provide the Customer access to any books, documents, papers, and record which
are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination,
excerpts, and transcriptions, for three years after final payments and all other pending matters
related to this contract are closed.
7.19 Notices
All notices, requests, or demands, and other communications from any of the parties hereto to the
others shall be in writing and shall be considered to have been duly given if personally given to
all other parties or on the date mailed if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, to the other parties at the address set forth below (or address as such
party may designates by written notice to the other party).
If to Zuercher: Zuercher Technologies LLC
ATTN: Michael Zuercher, President
5121 South Solberg Avenue, Suite 150
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 16
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 11
If to Customer: City of St. Louis Park
ATTN: Tom Harmening, City Manager
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
7.20 Performance and Payment Bond
In order to secure faithful performance of the Agreement at the time of its execution, Zuercher
shall provide at its cost a performance and payment bond in a form acceptable to the Customer
in the amount of 100% of the contract price set forth in Addendum C for costs associated with
system licensing, implementation, and first year maintenance. A separate bond for Year Two
Maintenance and thereafter shall be provided annually by Zuercher at its cost in the amount of
annual maintenance fee. The maintenance bond may be extended for additional terms at the
option of the Surety, by continuation certificate executed by the Surety. Neither non-renewal by
the Surety, nor failure or inability of the Principal to file a replacement bond or other
replacement security, shall constitute loss of the Obligee recoverable under this bond.
8. Customer Responsibilities
8.1 Project Management
The Customer shall provide one primary Project Manager to be the main point of contact for
Zuercher. The designated Project Manager will be responsible for managing and coordinating the
Customer’s resources to complete assigned project tasks and activities. The Project Manager will
also be responsible for designating persons responsible for specific roles as needed, such as
System Administrator and / or Hardware Project Manager, and ensuring that tasks assigned to
these individuals are completed. Customer shall be responsible for the designated Project
Manager coordinating with the Customer’s Chief Information Officer for the limited tasks to be
performed by the Customer’s Department of Information Resources.
The Project Manager will also be responsible for sign-offs of various project documents and will
have the authority to speak for Customer from a project perspective.
Customer’s dedicated Project Manager: Lieutenant Lori Dreier.
8.2 System Configuration
The Customer shall make available appropriate subject matter experts to perform System
configuration tasks as assigned. Customer shall be responsible for the designated Project
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 17
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 12
Manager coordinating with the Customer’s Chief Information Officer for the limited need for
subject matter experts from the Customer’s Department of Information Resources.
8.3 Data Conversion
The Customer shall provide data for conversion in one of the following compatible formats:
MS SQL .bak files with database version and credential information, MySQL .dump or .sql files
with database version and credential information, PostgreSQL .sql files with database version
and credential information, MS Access 2003 or newer .mdb files, CSV files with column headers
and relationship mapping documentation, or Oracle Version 10g or Newer backup files.
8.4 Additional Components
Other components (hardware and/or software) may be desired for use with the System. Zuercher
assumes no responsibility under this Agreement for obtaining and/or supporting such
components except as expressly agreed herein. This includes, but is not limited to, networking
equipment, workstations, servers for third party systems, mobile networking equipment, and
mobile workstations or laptops.
8.5 Third Party Costs
Except as expressly agreed herein, Zuercher assumes no responsibility for any third party costs
related to implementation of the System. This includes, but is not limited to, any third party costs
associated with the implementation of Interfaces.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 18
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 13
The Customer has read and agrees to all of the attached and incorporated terms and conditions.
City of St. Louis Park
Jeffrey E. Jacobs
Mayor
___________________________ Date: _________
Thomas K. Harmening
City Manager
___________________________ Date: _________
Zuercher Technologies LLC
Michael Zuercher
President
___________________________ Date: _________
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 19
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 14
Addendum A – Statement of Work
Zuercher will provide Software, Hardware, and Services, substantially similar to those outlined
below, in the quantities specified in Addendum B.
1. Software
The software detailed in the following sections includes, but is not limited to, the listed
functionality.
ledsSuite Base
• Operating software
• Database software
• Core ledsSuite application software
o Master name records
o Address records
o Vehicle records
o Configurable dashboard
o Authentication
ledsCAD
• Command-line entry
• Drag and drop commands
• Configurable, color-coded displays
• Silent dispatch (via ledsMobile)
• Incident alarms
• Unit assignments and status alarms
• Bulk shift status changes
• Detailed command logs
• Scheduled calls
• Responder paging
• Bulletins/BOLOs
• Beat plans
• Custom forms
ledsMapping
• Command-line entry
• Drag and drop commands
• Visual status alerts
• User configuration of map layers
• Active calls for service
• Call for service click-through
• Custom map markers
ledsMapping AVL
• Identify vehicle locations on map • Routing from current location to
CFS location
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 20
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 15
ledsRecords
• Configurable workflows
• Automatic case notifications
• Immediate access for related records
• Supervisor reviews
• Unlimited case report types such as:
o Investigations
o Juvenile
o Narcotics
• Security trimming for report types
• Full audit trail
• Digital evidence linking
• UCR compliant
• Alerts on warrants, sex offenders
• No duplicate data entry
• Property/evidence management
• Custom forms
ledsAdministration
• Shift logs
• Employee files
• Commendations and disciplinary
actions
• Training logs
• Policy manual
• Inventory management
• Fleet management
• Equipment assignments
• Secure intra-agency messaging
• Citizen feedback
• Custom forms
ledsFinancial
• Double-entry accounting system
• Automatic invoice creation
• Configurable addition of fees based
on record workflow
• Full audit trail
• Account reconciliation
• Receipt generation
• Statement printing
• Funds disbursements
ledsMobile CAD
• NCIC queries • Bulletins/BOLOs
ledsMobile Records
• Cases
• Warrants
• Access to master name files
(including mug shots)
• Alerts tied to master name files
• Field-based reporting
• One e-Citation form (MN Citation)
ledsMobile Mapping
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 21
Zuercher Technologies LLC | 16
• Active calls for service
• Map markers
• Visual status alerts
• User configuration of map layers
• Routing from current location to
CFS location
ledsMobile AVL
• Identify vehicle locations on map • Call for service integration
ledsJail
• Automatic sentence calculations
• Cell recommendations
• Integrated camera support
• Property tracking
• Inmate and commissary accounts
• Expenses and billing
• Court tracking
• Activity scheduling
• Visitor logs
• Incident and disciplinary logs
• Victim notification (VINE)
• Digital lineups
• Custom forms
ledsReporting
• Pre-made reports
• Custom reports
• Ad-hoc queries
• Export to PDF, Excel, XML, TXT
• Report builder
• Custom data filters
• Statistical analysis
• Scheduled reports
• Crime analysis
• COMSTAT compatible
• Email reports
ledsPortal
• Public access to info such as:
o Warrants
o Inmates
o Case reports
o Incident reports
o Sex offenders
• Read-only access
• Data sharing with other agencies
• Media reports
• Mobile device access
• Public tip submittals
1.1. Interfaces
All costs related to Zuercher’s implementation of the following interfaces is represented in
Addendum B. Any third party costs or charges incurred related to the implementation of the
following interfaces will be the responsibility of the Customer.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 22
The following is a comprehensive list of interfaces to be deployed. The interfaces listed below,
and their agreed upon function and method, may differ from other documents made part of this
Agreement. It is agreed that this section controls.
Any interfaces that cannot be deployed as part of System go-live due to the Customer or a third-
party vendor not being ready for deployment shall not delay System Acceptance.
MN NCIC Interface
This is a two-way interface between ledsSuite the BCA message switch. The Customer will
make the best effort to gain approval from Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to
provide a network connection and necessary authentication information. The following queries
are supported: DQ (Driver's License), QDP (In-state Driver's License), QMW (In-state Vehicle
Registration), RQ (Vehicle Registration), BQ (Boat), PAQ (Probation, Parole, Corrections), QA
(Article), QBOT (In-state Boat), QDC (Disability Certificate), QG (Gun), QML (Vehicle Lien
Holder), QMO (Vehicle Registration Owner), QMR (Vehicle Hot Files), QMS (Vehicle Sticker
Number), QORV (Off-Road Vehicle Registration), QSNO (In-state Snowmobile Registration),
SQ (Snowmobile Registration), Driver History, and Image.
MN Criminal Justice Statute Service (MNCJSS) Interface
This is a two-way interface between ledsSuite and the MN Criminal Justice Statute Service
(MNCJSS). ledsSuite will call the MNCJSS web service to update and validate statute citations
and statute IDs from the MNCJSS. ledsSuite will retrieve current statute information and
automatically update changes from the MNCJSS web service. ledsSuite will use approved XML
per MNCJSS's WSDL to call the necessary web service functions.
MN CJRS
This interface will allow the Customer to submit arrests, incidents, stolen property, and
recovered property in the format accepted by the MN CJRS system.
MN CIBRS
This interface will allow the Customer to submit data as outlined in the MN CIBRS system
documentation.
e-Charging Interface
This is a two-way interface between ledsSuite and the BCA eCharging Incident Report Service.
ledsSuite will submit incident report data as XML to the BCA's web service, to be consumed by
either law enforcement, prosecutors or courts. Data and message responses will come back to
ledsSuite via the BCA web service. Zuercher will conform to the “Getting Started Submitting to
eCharging.doc” for transmissions to and from the BCA's web service.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 23
e-Citation Interface
This interface will allow the Customer to submit citation data from ledsRecords to the MNCIS
system.
Firehouse Interface
This is a one-way interface from ledsCAD to Firehouse. Upon completion of a CFS in ledsCAD,
an XML file is written to a Customer provided network file share which is watched by the
Firehouse CAD Monitor. Information is then imported into Firehouse via a process managed
entirely by that application. Zuercher sets up the export of data from ledsCAD to the network file
share.
Dynamic Imaging Mug Shot Interface
This is a two-way interface between ledsJail and Dynamic Imaging. When an inmate is booked
into ledsJail, an XML file is sent to Dynamic Imaging, who then loads this data and captures
mug shot images. Dynamic Imaging sends the mug shot images to a network share location that
ledsJail then copies and imports back to the corresponding bookings. Dynamic Imaging prepares
and manages the HennRAP and Livescan data submissions.
MN VINE Interface
This is a one-way interface from ledsJail to Appriss. ledsJail sends inmate demographic data to
an SFTP site, hosted by Appriss, upon the completion of an inmate booking and when an inmate
is released. ledsJail also sends a daily active population report to the Appriss SFTP site to update
VINE. Zuercher sets up the export to the SFTP site.
SMS Gateway Service Interface
This is a one-way interface from ledsCAD to a Zuercher provided SMS Gateway. This interface
allows pages (messages) to be sent to individuals and groups via SMS directly from ledsCAD.
The Customer will perform all entry and configuration of phone numbers for SMS users. The
connection to the SMS Gateway Service interface is set up by Zuercher.
“PONotify” Interface
A list of current parolees will be downloaded daily from an MN DOC FTP site. If the data has
changed from the last download, it will be processed as follows. A search of ledsSuite case
involvements that have been added since the last new file was downloaded will be done for each
person in the list. If there is a name match using first name, last name, and DOB, then an email
will be sent to the email addresses listed as POEmail addresses for that parolee in the file. The
email will contain the parolee’s name, the Customer’s agency name, and a ledsSuite case number
for reference and will come from a ledsSuite email address that doesn’t receive replies.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 24
Entrust Tokens Interface
This is a two-way interface that uses Entrust Tokens for dual factor authentication when logging
into ledsSuite. ledsSuite will issue a RADIUS request to the LOGIS server to authenticate users
and will use the response to this request to allow or deny access.
Zuercher will entertain a different method of completing this interface as a best effort to avoid
the need for a second two-factor authorization for Customer, provided that the scope of work and
level of effort do not change.
NDI Recognition Interface
This is a one-way interface from the NDI Recognition System to ledsMobile. NDI uses its image
and IR camera system to recognize and transmit license plate tag numbers to ledsMobile, which
prepopulates a vehicle registration query (by plate) using the ledsSuite NCIC screen. This can be
configured to query automatically or manually.
FATPOT Interface
This is a one-way interface from ledsSuite to export an XML file with specified CAD
information via a RESTful interface. Fatpot will then access the data provided through the
interface and import it into their RMS via a process completely external to ledsSuite.
Time Synchronization
This is a one-way interface that uses NTP to keep all Servers’ clocks in sync.
N-DEx Adapter (IA IEPD)
This is an interface that produces XML that is conformant to the N-DEx Incident/Arrest (IA)
IEPD. It does not include all fields defined in the IEPD.
N-DEx Adapter (IB IEPD)
This is an interface that produces XML that is conformant to the N-DEx Incarceration/Booking
(IB) IEPD. It does not include all fields defined in the IEPD.
VIPER 911 Telephone System Interface
This is a one-way interface that receives ANL/ALI data over a serial connection.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 25
2. Hardware
Server Hardware
Three (3) rack-mount servers will be provided. They will be configured as ledsSuite servers in
three configurations: production, testing/training, and standby. In addition to the standard
ledsSuite operating environment, each server will have the capability of running an NCIC
message switch and interface server environment in a virtual machine. They will each be sized
by Zuercher to allow for acceptable system performance from any one of them.
Two (2) Lantronix KVM-over-IP devices will also be provided.
Upon termination of the Maintenance Agreement, Customer shall own the server hardware.
3. Services
Project Management
From the start of the project, a Zuercher Technologies project manager works with the agency as
the single point of contact for implementation of the ledsSuite system. The project manager
develops and manages the implementation schedule and liaises with the agency and Zuercher
Technologies to keep the project on track and on schedule. The project manager conducts weekly
status meetings to provide the agency with status reports.
The project team, under the direction of the project manager, visits pertinent areas of the agency
and meets with key agency personnel to understand the agency’s operational needs and business
rules. Team members observe the agency’s daily operations first-hand and use that information
to identify how the ledsSuite system would best be configured to match and enhance the
agency’s workflows. The project team trains system administrators in Customer Police
Department on configuration options and code table setup.
System Admin Training
As noted, the first portion of training is performed by the project team. Team members guide the
system administrators in configuring the ledsSuite system, setting up and maintaining code
tables, managing users and user rights, among other options.
In addition to the Zuercher project manager, one (1) Zuercher staff member will be on-site for
three (3) days of system admin training.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 26
Complete End User Training
Trainers conduct detailed courses for each of the agency’s user groups (such as dispatchers or
officers). These courses focus on the features of the ledsSuite system which are pertinent to each
of these groups in their roles within the agency. As a result, the content of each course is tailored
to the features and functionality which that group needs to know and use.
Prior to training and System Acceptance, Zuercher staff will assist in a “real world” stress test to
ensure that the System configuration has been completed successfully.
Up to ten (10) trainer-days of training will be provided.
Go Live Support
Zuercher Technologies staff is on site at the agency for go-live. Project managers and/or trainers
assist users with questions which arise during this process and reinforce skills learned during the
training sessions.
In addition to the Zuercher project manager, two (2) Zuercher staff members will be on-site for
two (2) days of go-live support.
Data Conversion
The project manager reviews with the agency which data is important to convert and monitors
the process to ensure timely completion. Zuercher Technologies’ data conversion analyst
performs the actual data conversion.
The data conversion analyst:
• Coordinates with the agency to obtain copies of conversion data and screen shots.
• Identifies how the legacy data is formatted, linked, and organized.
• Develops scripts to load legacy data into conversion tool and into ledsSuite.
• Guides the agency through verification of the converted data.
The following data will be converted:
• eTrack Evidence – data to be in a form substantially similar to that of the provided
“eTrack_backup_2013_08_22_170010_2105161.bak” file
• Printrak CAD – data to be in a form substantially similar to that of the provided
“PCAD_Archive_SF.bak” and “PCAD_Archive_SL.bak” files
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 27
• Printrak RMS – data to be in a form substantially similar to that of the provided
“LRMS_Archive_SL.bak” file
Data not contained in three systems listed above will not be converted.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 28
Addendum B – Pricing Detail
The following pricing details and totals are provided for informational purposes only and are not
intended to indicate final amounts to be paid by the Customer. It is agreed that Addendum C is
the controlling document with respect to payments and amounts owed.
Purchase
and Year 1
maintenanc
e Maintenance
CAD $127,335 $21,325
RMS $87,390 $10,803
MDC $64,790 $9,068
AVL $14,300 $2,145
JMS $17,745 $2,243
Interfaces $163,000 $28,700
Data Conversion $20,000
System TOTALS $494,560 $74,284
Interfaces Purchase Maintenance
MN BCA NCIC $20,500 $4,100
MN Criminal Justice Statute Service (MNCJSS) $12,500 $1,875
MN Criminal Justice Reporting Service (CJRS) Included $0
e-Charging $7,500 $1,125
e-Citation $25,500 $5,100
VIPER 9-1-1 Telephone System Included $0
Firehouse Software Service $5,500 $825
Time Synchronization Included $0
Dynamic Imaging Mug Shot / Livescan / HenRAP $12,500 $2,500
Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) network $5,000 $750
MN Department of Corrections: Statewide Supervision System Included $0
SMS Text Paging $6,500 $975
Rip and Run Included $0
CIBRS Interface Included $0
N-DEx Adapter (IA IEPD) Included $0
N-DEx Adapter (IB IEPD) Included $0
MN DOC PONotify $10,000 $1,500
Drivers License Query & Populate - no hardware $10,000 $2,200
Entrust Tokens $11,500 $1,725
NDI LPR $12,500 $2,500
FATPOT $23,500 $3,525
Interfaces TOTALs $163,000 $28,700
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 29
Addendum C – Payment Schedule
The following payments shall be paid by Customer to Zuercher for Year One Purchase including
Year One Maintenance:
• 30 percent upon contract signing
$148,368
• 30 percent upon Server Hardware Installation, Powered Up, Software
Installed
$148,368
• 25 percent upon System Implementation
$123,640
• 15 percent upon System Acceptance by Customer
$74,184
Year Two Maintenance shall be in the amount of $74,284.00. Annual Maintenance for
subsequent years three through ten will not increase in an amount greater than five percent (5%)
of the previous year.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 30
Addendum D - Maintenance Agreement
1. Warranties
1.1 Software Warranties
Zuercher warrants that: (i) it owns or otherwise has the rights in the Software and has the right to
license the Software as described in this Agreement and (ii) while the Maintenance Agreement is
in effect and has not been terminated or expired the operation of the Software shall not have
material non-conformities, provided that no party has altered any portion of the Software, that
the Software are operated on the Equipment and in the Operation Environment necessary to
operate the Software, and that any non-conformities are not caused by products or services from
any third party. Zuercher shall correct the Software, in a reasonable time, to perform in
accordance with Addendum A, upon written notice of its failure to so perform from the
Customer. In the event Zuercher fails to remedy material defects in the Software under this
Warranty, the Customer shall be entitled to all legal and equitable remedies allowed by
applicable law for breach of such warranty.
1.2 Hardware and Third Party Software Warranties
Zuercher warrants that, at the time of delivery, the Hardware will be new and unused.
In addition to the Software Warranty in Paragraph 1.1, all Hardware and Third Party Software
warranties provided by the manufacturer will be passed through to the Customer. Zuercher will
be solely responsible for processing and managing of all Hardware and Third Party Software
warranty claims that may be necessary during the term of this Agreement.
2. Software Updates
While this Agreement has not expired, Zuercher will maintain the Software by providing
software updates and enhancements to the Customer. All software updates provided to the
Customer by Zuercher pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be subject to the terms and
conditions of the License Agreement between the parties. Updates will be provided on an as-
available basis and include the items listed below:
1. Bug fixes;
2. Enhancements to products licensed by Customer under this Agreement;
Updates do not include:
1. Platform extensions including product extensions to different hardware platforms,
different windowing system platforms, or different operating system platforms
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 31
2. New functions such as new modules, components, products, or applications.
At a time mutually acceptable to both parties, Zuercher will install software updates remotely.
3. Support
Zuercher shall provide phone and email support for the Software licensed under this agreement
and shall maintain a support center database to track any reported issues. No support will be
provided for Software more than two versions back from the most recently released version.
Support does not include custom programming services or training.
4. Hardware Maintenance
Zuercher will maintain, and replace as necessary, the Server Hardware necessary to host the
Software. This does not include any Hardware except Server Hardware.
5. Customer Responsibilities
5.1 Access to Premises
The Customer shall provide Zuercher with reasonable and timely access to the sites and
personnel necessary for Zuercher to perform its obligations under this Agreement.
5.2 Zuercher Server Access
The Customer will ensure that all ledsSuite servers are network accessible to Zuercher at all
times via SSH.
5.3 System Administrator
The Customer is responsible for naming one or more System Administrators from its Police
Department to serve as a primary point of contact between the Customer and Zuercher. At least
one System Administrator must be available at all times. The Customer will ensure that the
System Administrators possesses the appropriate technology and public safety knowledge and
skills to perform this role sufficiently.
5.4 Security
The Customer is responsible for providing all network and physical security except as
specifically stated below. This includes, but is not limited to, VPN, dual factor authentication,
firewalls, and routers.
Zuercher will provide FIPS-140 compliant encryption between the production and standby
servers as well as to its backup facilities. Zuercher is also responsible for all security related to its
System of software, hardware, and services. Zuercher and Customer are each responsible for
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 32
gaining approval from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for its respective
security tasks.
5.5 System Updates
The Customer shall work in good faith to allow Zuercher to install System updates as requested
by Zuercher on Hardware and automated Hardware-driven updates on all licensed client
computers in Customer Police and Fire Departments. Utilizing said updates, Zuercher shall work
in good faith to continue support for System compatibility with Customer’s current Microsoft
Windows 7 operating system and Office 2010 office automation software and their updates as
long as Microsoft Corporation provides official support for Microsoft Windows 7 and Office
2010.
6. Escrow
“Source Code” means all source code of the Software, together with all commentary and other
materials supporting, incorporated into or necessary for the use of such source code, including all
supporting configuration, documentation, and other resource files and identification by Zuercher
and version number of any software (but not a license to such third-party software) used in
connection with the source code and of any compiler, assembler, or utility used in generating
object code.
Within ninety (90) days of the effective date, Zuercher shall deposit the Source Code for the
Software with a nationally recognized software escrow (the “Escrow Agreement”). Within
ninety (90) days after delivery to the Customer of any major update, Zuercher shall deposit the
Source Code for such update with the Escrow Agent pursuant to the Escrow Agreement.
The parties agree that the Escrow Agreement is an “agreement supplementary to” the Agreement
as provided in Section 365(d) of Title 11, United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
Immediately upon termination of this Agreement, the Source Code shall be released back to
Zuercher.
Conditions for release: the Customer will have the right to obtain the Source Code in accordance
with and subject to the terms and conditions of this section and the Escrow Agreement provided
that all of the following three conditions are met (collectively a “Release Event”):
a. Zuercher winds down its business or liquidates its business under a Chapter 7
Bankruptcy proceeding; Zuercher discontinues maintenance and support to the
Software; or Zuercher refuses or is otherwise unwilling to continue maintenance and
support of the Software
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 33
b. No entity has succeeded to Zuercher’s obligations to provide maintenance and
support on the Software in accordance with the Agreement in effect between the
parties, and
c. The Customer is not in breach of its obligations under this Agreement.
In no event shall the Customer have the right to use the Source Code, “barring a release event”,
for any purpose, and the Customer is specifically prohibited from using the Source Code to
reverse engineer, develop derivative works or to sublicense the right to use the Source Code to
any other person or entity for any purpose. The Customer will also be obligated to treat the
Source Code as confidential information of Zuercher under the Agreement subject to the
provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or any other applicable law relating
to public disclosure.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 34
Addendum E – Tentative Timeline
The following is a tentative implementation schedule and is included for informational purposes
only. It is not meant to hold either the Customer or Zuercher to any specific deadlines.
Monday, October 7, 2013
• St. Louis Park Police Department Completes Contract Signing.
• Zuercher Technologies Initiates Internal Kickoff Discussions.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
• Zuercher Technologies Holds Kickoff Meeting with St. Louis Park Police Department.
• St. Louis Park Police Department identifies Server and Network Specifications.
• Zuercher Technologies Orders Servers.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
• St. Louis Park Police Department Provides Conversion Data and Matching System
Screen Shots.
• St. Louis Park Police Department Initiates Interface Discussions with Third-Party
Vendors.
• Zuercher Technologies installs/configures/tests servers at headquarters with OS and
ledsSuite.
Monday, December 2, 2013
• Zuercher Technologies Installs Servers onsite at St. Louis Park Police Department.
• Zuercher Technologies attends onsite Business Practice Review (BPR).
• Zuercher Technologies Initiates System Configuration with St. Louis Park Police
Department.
• Zuercher Technologies begins writing the Configuration Management Document (CMD).
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
• Zuercher Technologies submits the Configuration Management Document (CMD) to St.
Louis Park Police Department for Review and Approval.
Friday, December 13, 2013
• Zuercher Technologies Receives Approved Configuration Management Document
(CMD) from St. Louis Park Police Department.
Monday, December 16, 2013
• Zuercher Technologies Begins Interface Engineering.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 35
Monday, January 3, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies Begins Data Conversion.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies Complete Enhancement Engineering and Begins New Feature
Configuration.
• Zuercher Technologies Completes Interface Engineering and Begins Testing with St.
Louis Park Police Department.
Friday, March 7, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies Completes Data Conversion and Begins Data Validation with St.
Louis Park Police Department.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies and St. Louis Park Police Department Completes System
Configuration.
Friday, March 14, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies Provides Demo and Final Review of Configured System.
Friday, March 21, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies Completes Final Modifications of Configured System.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
• Zuercher Technologies Conducts ledsSuite Train-the-Trainer Sessions.
Monday, March 31, 2014
• St. Louis Park Police Department Conducts End User Training Sessions.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
• St. Louis Park Police Department Goes Live with ledsSuite.
City Council Meeting of October 7, 2013 (Item No. 8e)
Title: Public Safety Software Agreement Page 36